Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

DEATH OF A MEMBER

Madam Speaker: I regret to have to inform the House of the death of George Robert Cryer, esquire, Member for Bradford, South, and I desire, on behalf of the House, to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the honourable Member.

NEW WRIT

For Rotherham constituency, in the room of Jimmy Boyce, esquire, deceased.—[Mr. Derek Foster.]

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND INDUSTRY

National Consumer Council

Mr. Martyn Jones: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what further assessment he has made of the impact on consumer advisory services of his reduction in the grant of the National Consumer Council.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Technology (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): I am confident that the National Consumer Council will continue to promote and safeguard the interests of consumers as a whole.

Mr. Jones: How can the Minister justify that statement after making a cut in the grant to the National Consumer Council? When will he restore that cut to protect consumers in this country?

Mr. McLoughlin: The hon. Gentleman will recognise that the National Consumer Council has done well over the years with funding increases, from some £0.32 million in 1975-76 to £2.47 million in 1994-95—an increase of some 80 per cent. in real terms. I think that that shows the Government's commitment to the National Consumer Council.

Mr. Riddick: Does my hon. Friend agree that, while consumer bodies such as the National Consumer Council have a role to play, consumers' interests are best served by maximising competition within free and open markets? Is that not what the Government have been achieving over the past 15 years through the rigorous use of competition policies and, most important, by privatising the old state-owned nationalised industries so that consumers' interests now take top priority?

Mr. McLoughlin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is absolutely right. We have seen time and again that competition reduces prices. Perhaps the most outstanding example of that is telecommunications.

Balance Of Trade

Mr. Grocott: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the balance of trade in manufacturing products in (a) 1979 and (b) the latest year for which figures are available.

The Minister for Trade (Mr. Richard Needham): In 1979, the United Kingdom had a surplus of £2.7 billion in manufactured trade. In 1993, there was a deficit of £7.8 billion. Since 1979, the volume of UK exports of manufactures has grown by 60 per cent.

Mr. Grocott: As the Minister mumbled those disgraceful figures into the Dispatch Box, perhaps I can spell them out a little more clearly. The £2.7 billion surplus in 1979, in real terms, at current prices, would be a £6.8 billion surplus which, after 15 oil-rich years, is now a £7.8 billion deficit. What is the latest Government thinking about a scapegoat for that? Is it the foreigners, the unions, or Labour local authorities? Is it too much to expect the Minister to give us a parliamentary first today and stand at the Dispatch Box and apologise to the country for representing a Government of the most appalling economic and industrial incompetence?

Mr. Needham: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that Labour-controlled local authorities have anything to do with the manufacturing decline of this country, he lives in cloud cuckoo land, as do most of his hon. Friends. If he and his colleagues had been in power, there would have been no reform of the trade unions, no privatisation of public utilities and every business man in the country would have fled because of the tax impositions advocated by Labour Members.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: As one of those hon. Members who, probably more than many others, recognised the vital role of manufacturing industry, I fully support the Government's new approach to it and their recognition of its importance. Will my hon. Friend ensure that the Government continue to create the right climate for the expansion of manufacturing industry, especially low inflation and low interest rates which are essential to the success of this vital sector?

Mr. Needham: Yes.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: When does the Minister expect to publish his report on the competitiveness of British manufacturing industry? Will he set out in that report his Department's priorities specifically to rebuild the British manufacturing base so that we can secure the advantages of the post-GATT eighth round? Will he be prepared to build into that incentives for companies that make long-term commitments to research and development and innovation in order to counter the short-termism which so often discourages such enterprise?

Mr. Needham: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will have noted what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. Robin Cook: The Minister invited the House to imagine what would have happened had there been a Labour Government in power. Why does he not admit that if a Labour Government had transformed a surplus of £7 billion at 1993 prices to a deficit of £7 billion in 1993 he would be demanding that they resign? Why does he not take that message himself? Why does he not admit that the cumulative surplus under Labour was more than £80 billion and that the cumulative deficit under the Conservatives has been more than £80 billion? Is that not the real measure of the appalling damage done to our manufacturing industry by 15 years of Conservative rule?

Mr. Needham: If the hon. Gentleman, with his total lack of understanding and knowledge of industry, had been in power, the deficit would have been £17 billion rather than £7 billion. If he examined the percentages for a moment, he would find that the deficit now is 1¼ per cent. of gross domestic product and the surplus in 1979 was 1½ per cent., so the difference is about 2⅔ per cent. That total number in terms of the size of the economy, when compared with the increase in the surplus on services, is almost meaningless.

Mr. Oppenheim: Is it not a fact that our balance of trade in manufacturing was falling very sharply in the 1960s and 1970s and especially in the latter part of the 1970s but that since then our record in manufacturing exports, output and productivity has for the first time since the war been better than the average of our main competitors? Does that not mean that in the past 15 years we have made up much of the ground lost when Labour was implementing its industrial strategy to turn British Steel into the world's largest loss maker and British cars into the butt of international music hall jokes?

Mr. Needham: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. To cite just one statistic, in the three months to the end of February our exports to Asia have risen by 25 per cent. in value. In the same three months last year, they rose by 11 per cent. in value. Britain's success in increasing our manufacturing exports is unrivalled by that of any other country.

National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux

Mr. Turner: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what further assessment he has made of the impact on consumer advisory services of the real-terms reduction in grant to the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux.

Mr. McLoughlin: The National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux plays an important and valuable role in its support of local citizens advice bureaux. We have more than doubled the grant in aid paid to NACAB in real terms since 1979-80, and I am confident that maintaining the grant in 1993-94 will enable it to provide continued support.

Mr. Turner: The Minister did not mention that he has cut the grant to citizens advice bureaux for the current year. Citizens advice bureaux in the west midlands, an area which he knows very well, last year received the largest number of inquiries of any region in the United Kingdom, but they will be unable to provide the same level of service to consumers in the forthcoming year. When does he intend to make good the cuts?

Mr. McLoughlin: As I have explained, there have been no cuts. However, I am glad that the hon. Gentleman referred to the west midlands, as I hope that he will join me in congratulating Conservative-controlled Wolverhampton council on increasing the grant paid to the citizens advice bureaux in his own constituency. When the Conservatives took control, they increased the grant by some 25 per cent. I am glad to hear the hon. Gentleman congratulate them on the excellent job that they are doing.

Maritime Borders

Mr. Trimble: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement concerning the representations made by his Department to the European Commission concerning Interreg 2 and maritime borders.

Mr. Needham: Northern Ireland does not qualify for a sea border Interreg programme because it does not have an international sea border with another member state. However, the Government are confident that there will be increased support for Northern Ireland under a successor to its Interreg programme with the Republic of Ireland.

Mr. Trimble: Does the Minister not appreciate that if the Interreg 2 programme remains confined to maritime borders and is not expanded to include maritime regions, as would be consistent with the policy, Northern Ireland and Scotland will suffer in comparison with the southern corridor through north Wales to Dublin? Does he understand our annoyance that when our European representative, Jim Nicholson, went to the European Commission, the Commissioner told him that he was sympathetic but that the Department of Trade and Industry was being unhelpful? Does the Minister not realise that his duty is to represent not only England and Wales but the whole of the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland and Scotland?

Mr. Needham: I do not need any lessons from the hon. Gentleman about representing the whole of the United Kingdom. The land element in Interreg 2 is much larger than the maritime element. There is no justification for the comments that the hon. Gentleman alleges were made to Mr. Jim Nicholson. It is vital to ensure that Northern Ireland, especially Belfast, gets a reasonable proportion of the land element of Interreg 2, which can be used to ensure that Belfast and other ports in Northern Ireland remain competitive with those of the south. The Government continually tell the Commission that there must be no unfair subsidies that would put the ports of Northern Ireland at a disadvantage.

Dr. Spink: Is my hon. Friend aware of the current deliberations on the Interreg 3 programme, and how important it is that south-east Essex should be successful in its application, so as to develop its infrastructure and therefore improve its manufacturing competitiveness?

Mr. Needham: I am sure that the Department of Trade and Industry will ensure that those arguments are heard loud and clear in the Commission.

Mr. Wigley: Will the Minister give a commitment that the Government's promise to give top priority to the links not only between Holyhead and Dublin but between


Pembroke and south-east Ireland still stands, and that they are working on it? Will he confirm that in Wales the Welsh Office will be in charge of administering the programme?

Mr. Needham: As I understand it, the local Departments will administer the programme. Representations are being made to the Commission and the results, including those relating to the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, will be known in June. I repeat what I said about the need to ensure that all the ports in the United Kingdom are treated fairly.

Competitiveness, Buckinghamshire

Mr. Lidington: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to encourage the competitiveness of industries in Buckinghamshire.

The President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Michael Heseltine): Under the Government, we now have the lowest interest rates for nearly 20 years, manufacturing productivity at an all-time high, and we have the lowest underlying inflation for the past 26 years. Investment in plant and machinery is up nearly 50 per cent. since 1979.
I am pleased to announce that a new business link in Aylesbury is expected to open in June. We shall announce our further policies on competitiveness in a White Paper to be published soon.

Mr. Lidington: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in a competitive world economy it is important not only for large British companies but for small and medium-sized companies, which form the majority of employers in places such as Aylesbury, to get used to exporting as part of their regular business planning? Will he ensure that the welcome new business link office in Aylesbury, and other measures adopted by the Department, will provide advice to enable small and medium-sized employers to go out and break into overseas markets?

Mr. Heseltine: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend. Like many people, I believe that job creation in the future will come from the small and medium-sized business sector. We in the Department of Trade and Industry are determined to reinforce the efforts of that vital
part of the British economy by providing a first-class advisory service through the business link movement. We are also determined to push on with the export promoter initiative, which has now attracted about 75 secondees from the private sector to my Department to help and advise the small companies that we wish to see pioneer export markets.

Fuel Bills (Early Payment)

Mr. Kevin Hughes: To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he will be meeting the gas and electricity regulators to discuss the effect of the early payment of fuel bills.

The Minister for Energy (Mr. Tim Eggar): I meet the gas and electricity regulators from time to time. They are responsible for monitoring the performance of the gas and electricity companies on their regulated business.

Mr. Hughes: At those meetings, will the Minister put pressure on the regulators to ensure that any profits made by the power companies from advance payments will be

returned to the customers in terms of reduced bills, especially for those who could not afford to go through the loophole, as the wealthy did, and make advance payments? Will the Minister put pressure on so that those least able to afford the bills will have a reduction?

Mr. Eggar: That is a matter for the companies—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I have noticed that Midlands Electricity has announced that £500,000 of income derived from interest from pre-payments will be donated to the Neighbourhood Energy Action Trust. I very much congratulate Midlands Electricity on that initiative.

Mr. Congdon: Will my hon. Friend draw to the attention of the regulators the fact that consumers are pleased by the substantial reductions, in real terms, in their energy bills since the privatisation of the once state-owned monopolies?

Mr. Eggar: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. The position is in stark contrast to Labour's record when in power, when electricity prices rose by 22 per cent. between 1974 and 1979.

Mr. O'Neill: Is the Minister aware that a number of the regional electricity companies have misled their consumers? East Midlands Electricity has on its form:
VAT on electricity—There is no need to make an additional payment and East Midlands Electricity does not encourage you to do so.
Yet in the next sentence, the company says:
Additional payments can be made using the payment slip below.
Those contradictory statements were designed to mislead consumers. Surely the least that the Government can do is to point out to the regulator the misleading statements, and the way in which the companies are fleecing people and making vast profits. Neighbourhood energy schemes are just a drop in the ocean compared with people's suffering as a consequence of the 8·5 per cent. increase.

Mr. Eggar: As I understand it from what the hon. Gentleman said, the company was telling consumers about the choice available to them. The nature of the hon. Gentleman's question reveals all. If he were Minister for Energy, which God forbid, he would be saying exactly what must be done in terms of billing and what consumers must do, depriving consumers of all choice.

Mr. Brazier: With regard to the early payment of bills, will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating my constituent, Mrs. Scott, whose home I was privileged to visit on Monday? She has come up with a far more effective way to reduce her fuel bills, using the Government's splendid new home insulation grants which are now available to all pensioners.

Mr. Eggar: I will, of course, congratulate Mrs. Scott and my hon. Friend. I dare say that the scheme will go particularly well in Midlands Electricity areas as I suspect that it has been funded with the help of the Neighbourhood Energy Action Trust.

Utility Regulators

Mr. Battle: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will review the power of the utility regulators over high charges and preferential boardroom share options.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. Neil Hamilton): The utility regulators have sufficient powers to protect consumers' interests over a range of issues, including prices. The remuneration of company directors is a matter for the company concerned and its shareholders.

Mr. Battle: Is the Minister aware that the chairman of Yorkshire Water, Sir Gordon Jones, stands to make £260,000 profit on his share option deal, but is giving many of my constituents the single option of accepting expensive, unaffordable metering? All other water consumers have no option but to pay unacceptable and extortionate charges. When will the Minister give real power to the regulators and redress that injustice?

Mr. Hamilton: If the hon. Gentleman is so concerned about the arrangement, I suggest that he buys some shares in the company, attends the annual general meeting and speaks out there. In general, the position is substantially improved compared with that under the Labour Government, when such individuals were paid large sums for turning in large losses, which were ultimately subsidised by taxpayers. Now, at least, profits are being divided, part among employees and part among directors. That seems a significant improvement.

Mr. Ian Taylor: Is it not typical of the Opposition to show envy about the success of companies and the share option schemes, which are valuable only because the companies have done very well? Is it not a fact that many of the executive share option schemes about which the Opposition complain are linked to employee share option schemes, which are also valuable if the company has done well?

Mr. Hamilton: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. That is an important element in providing incentives to companies to become more efficient, which is in the general interest of consumers. As the answer to the question of the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) shows, never has the difference between the two parties in the House been so amply demonstrated. As defined by Winston Churchill, while capitalism involves the unequal sharing of blessings, socialism means the equal sharing of misery.

Mrs. Helen Jackson: Is the Minister aware of the extreme public anger and fury in Yorkshire about the actions of the water regulator, who has extended his power through the President of the Board of Trade despite numerous letters from Members of Parliament on both sides of the House, thus allowing the chairman of Ofwat's Yorkshire customer services committee to be sacked by the regulator? Does that not smack of power, patronage and preference, which is out of place in a public service such as the water industry?

Mr. Hamilton: It is a bit of a cheek for a Labour Member of Parliament to accuse the Government or any organisation such as Ofwat of nepotism or partiality. It was, after all, the last Labour Prime Minister who appointed his son-in-law as Her Majesty's ambassador in Washington. The director general of Ofwat gave evidence this morning to the Select Committee on the Environment and I am sure that he is capable of defending himself. Ofwat has rejected claims that the director general has

acted in any way improperly in making appointments to the customer services committee. Of course, a balance must be drawn between experience and turnover.

Trade Missions

Mr. Gallie: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the countries in the far east to which it is planned to send trade missions supported by his Department.

Mr. Needham: There are currently plans for six ministerial visits to the far east, including trade missions, in the remainder of the year. On present plans, I hope that on those missions I will visit Malaysia, Indonesia, Japan, Thailand, Taiwan, South Korea, Vietnam, the Philippines and China.

Mr. Gallie: Will my hon. Friend accept my appreciation of the recent support that he has given to the Jetstream aircraft in my constituency? Is he aware that Jetstream has recently established a spares department in Singapore to service an increasing fleet? Will he ensure that on future trade missions Jetstream aircraft will be promoted as first-class aircraft and that the back-up services will also be promoted as first-class services?

Mr. Needham: I am only too delighted—I am sure that I also speak for my right hon. and hon. Friends—that any mission that we take to the far east should include companies from my hon. Friend's constituency. I also extend that invitation an all hon. Members. If there are companies in their constituencies which they think can export successfully to the far east, we should be only too delighted to include them. As a result of the missions that we have undertaken over the past two years, sales to Singapore were up some 30 per cent. in 1993 on 1992 and some 30 per cent. in the first three months of this year. That is true throughout the whole of the far east and I am sure that that will continue to be the case.

Mr. Bell: With due respect, the House welcomes the Minister's globe-trotting activities, but in response to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) is it not a fact that our world trade has steadied while that of France has increased? On his missions abroad, does the Minister think that our embassy and high commission staff are sufficient for the job or do we need more? Are we sure that the dead hand of the Treasury is not lying across our exports? What can the Minister do to ensure that there is a level playing field for the British when dealing with the French, the Germans and the Americans and not a tilted playing field?

Mr. Needham: Our strategy, which has developed over the past two years, gives us a business plan in each of the major markets of the world and these are supported by the posts overseas. We discuss staffing levels through the joint export promotion directorate, and at present I have no indication from it that we are below strength or below the plans that we have set out. We are showing British industry —I am glad that we have its support—that we are giving it as good a service as that received by any company in any country anywhere in the developed world.

Business Confidence

Mr. Peter Ainsworth: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on business confidence.

Mr. Heseltine: All the major business surveys show that British industry is increasingly confident about the future.

Mr. Ainsworth: Does my right hon. Friend agree that that confidence is rooted in the fact that Britain is now a low interest rate, low inflation and growing economy—[Interruption]—attributes which Labour Members appear to find derisory—and that we also have a relative competitive edge in Europe and the world which Opposition party policies would jeopardise, probably at the cost of millions of jobs, through their socialist and strikers' charters?

Madam Speaker: Order. I need hardly remind hon. Members yet again that it is the Executive who are being brought to account during Question Time. It is not an Opposition party which must have its policies questioned but the Executive.

Mr. Heseltine: I agree with my hon. Friend. The fact is that since 1981, the volume of United Kingdom manufactured exports has grown faster than in France, Germany, Italy and Japan.

Mr. Mandelson: Does the Minister accept that business confidence in the northern region was greatly knocked by the Government's decision to cut the grant to the Northern Development Company? In view of the continuing success of that company—of course, local authorities and the private sector are maintaining their commitment to the NDC—and as the northern region is crying out for jobs and investment, what possible sense could there have been in the Government's decision?

Mr. Heseltine: The confidence of the business sector in the north will be affected by the state of the order book and the effectiveness of its ability to compete. That is what matters to industrialists. We will do our best to continue to support them within the resources available to my Department.

Sir David Madel: In relation to business confidence in Bedfordshire, my right hon. Friend is aware of the situation of Lancer Boss Trucks in Leighton Buzzard. Can he assure me that his Department will do all that it can to help the receiver to sell the company as a going concern so that manufacturing jobs in the fork-lift truck industry in Leighton Buzzard, Bedfordshire, can be retained?

Mr. Heseltine: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend. [Interruption.] I should have thought that the House would want to hear about this extremely important matter. It is extraordinary that when jobs and investment in manufacturing industry are at stake, Labour Members seek to turn it into a national joke. The fact is that Ministers and officials have already been in touch with both the company and the receivers. My Department will do all that it can to assist, but it cannot become involved in the receivers' administration of the case. However, there seems to be a good prospect of an offer being made for the Lancer Boss group as a whole.

Mr. Fatchett: For a Government who claimed that business confidence depended on the level of taxation, how does the President of the Board of Trade explain to business people the fact that the Government have increased taxes to a record level and imposed a savage increase in taxation on every family in the country? Is not that another example of the Government's economic incompetence damaging Britain's business interests?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman cannot have heard what I said. All the latest business surveys show growing confidence. The reason for that growing confidence is that British industry wants a competitive exchange rate, rising productivity, low inflation and low interest rates. Under this Government, it is getting all four.

Jobs And Exports

Mr. Paice: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment his Department has made of the average numbers of United Kingdom jobs created or maintained for every £1 billion earned by United Kingdom exports.

Mr. Needham: The best available estimate is that £1 billion of visible exports is likely to be associated with around 30,000 jobs.

Mr. Paice: Does my hon. Friend accept that that clearly demonstrates what many of us have known for a long time: Britain has and always will be a trading nation and we must export to provide jobs and the wealth of the country? Does not last week's announcement that British car exports to Japan increased by 30 per cent. demonstrate that we are now in a competitive situation? Is not it time that we recognised that competitiveness and a flexible labour market go together, and those who would impose regulations on our labour force and load burdens on our employers would destroy competitiveness, destroy exports and destroy jobs?

Mr. Needham: I agree with my hon. Friend. We have a competitive industry. We must do everything that we can to ensure that it stays that way, and the' most important thing is to deny power to the Labour party.

Mr. Winnick: If all is so well, as the President of the Board of Trade and the Minister have repeatedly said this afternoon, why is there such a lobby on the Tory Benches for the President of the Board of Trade to replace the Prime Minister? Is not it a fact that many Tory Members find the present situation in the country so appalling that they want to replace the Prime Minister with the President?

Madam Speaker: Order. As I said earlier, this an opportunity to question Government policy, not to question individuals or Opposition policies. I suggest that the Minister replies to the first part of the question.

Mr. Needham: The second part of the question made me so cross that I have forgotten the first part.

Madam Speaker: I call Mrs. Lait. Let us have a sensible question from a woman.

Mrs. Lait: I will try to restrain my anger. When does my hon. Friend expect accurate statistics from the European Union about trade within member states?

Mr. Needham: I cannot give my hon. Friend an exact estimate. I have no reason to believe that the way in which the statistics are collected here means that they are any less competently done or accurate than they are in other European states. There is a bedding-down period and it will affect the balance of trade figures in all the countries of Europe for some time yet.

Gas Consumer Council

Mr. Berry: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will assess the impact of the reduction in the Gas Consumer Council's budget on the availability of advice to the public on gas safety.

Mr. Eggar: The Gas Consumer Council has indicated that it expects to be able to carry out all its functions within the budget allocated for 1994-95.

Mr. Berry: In that case, can the Minister say why only this morning the Gas Consumer Council told me that the impact of the cuts would be borne by leaflets and the provision of information? Does he ask me to believe his account of the impact on safety campaigns in the gas industry, or to believe the Gas Consumer Council's account?

Mr. Eggar: My understanding is that the Gas Consumer Council is confident of being able to carry out its current functions. It will have to absorb a small reduction in its budget, in accordance with the necessary restrictions on public expenditure as a whole, but it is absolutely typical of the Opposition parties that they fail to recognise that the alternative to reductions in public expenditure is increases in taxation.

Sir Michael Grylls: Why do we need a Gas Consumer Council?

Mr. Eggar: It was generally felt when the gas industry was privatised that there was a need for consumer protection and that the best way to achieve it was through the operation of Ofgas and the Gas Consumer Council. The Gas Consumer Council, together with other similar consumer bodies, must be able to show that it is working hard in the interests of consumers in order to justify its continued existence.

Insolvency Service Agency

Mr. Jon Owen Jones: To ask the President sof the Board of Trade what recent increase there has been in the staff of the Insolvency Service agency's disqualification unit.

Mr. Neil Hamilton: The Insolvency Service's disqualification unit has recently been increased by four staff on loan from other Government Departments and by two fully qualified staff seconded from the private sector. In 1994-95, we propose to provide further resources to enable up to 15 extra staff, including secondees from the private sector, to be added to the complement of the unit. Official receivers will be committing more of their resources to disqualification and prosecution work. As a result, disqualification proceedings against unfit directors are expected to increase substantially within 12 months of completion of training of the new staff.

Mr. Jones: The Minister's announcement of a total of 15 extra staff is welcome, but it is hardly likely to make much of a dent in the increased demand on the Insolvency Service from the increase of over 400 per cent. in bankruptcies since 1987. What does the Minister say to the National Audit Office's report on the Insolvency Service last year, which stated that up to 50 per cent. of directors who merited disqualification would not be disqualified because the resources were inadequate, or to the admission—

Madam Speaker: Order. This is Question Time. I must have brisk questions and brisk answers.

Mr. Hamilton: Since 1989-90 the number of staff employed in the Insolvency Service has increased from 1,400 to 1,800. There has been, as a result of the recession, a significant increase in the workload of the service with which it has coped extremely well. We are aware of the problems that were identified by the National Audit Office's report. We are considering methods of addressing those difficulties and I am waiting now for the report of the Public Accounts Committee, following which I shall, I hope, be in a position to make an announcement.

Mr. Page: rose—

Madam Speaker: I call Mr. Malcolm Moss.

Mr. Page: There is a resemblance, Madam Speaker, although my hon. Friend is not quite as good-looking.
In contrast to the carping question from the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones), does not the increase in manpower reflect to the credit of both the agency and the Government? Is not it a positive reaction to the National Audit Office report and the Public Accounts Committee inquiry in January this year? Will not the improvement allow closer co-operation between the Insolvency Service and the agencies, and make company directors more aware of their responsibilities, thus giving greater protection to the public, which we all want?

Mr. Hamilton: I agree with my hon. Friend and I pay a warm tribute to the staff employed by the Insolvency Service for the way in which they have. coped with the dramatic upturn in work in recent years. We must try to find more flexible means of taking on staff to cope with such peaks as well as troughs in the work. The consultancy studies presently being undertaken will help to do that and we want to be able to contract and expand the service according to the work available. Thus, we shall not have to take staff permanently on to the books who will be under-utilised at times when there is not enough work for them.

Research And Development

Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much was invested in research and development by British industry during 1992-93; and what percentage this represents of gross domestic product.

Mr. McLoughlin: In 1992, the latest year for which figures are available, UK businesses undertook £7,930 million of research and development, equivalent to 1.3 per cent. of gross domestic product.

Mr. Williams: Investment in research and development by British industry is about one third less than that of our


industrial competitors. Does the Minister agree that as a society we should be devoting something like 1 per cent. more of our GDP to research and development? What proposals do the Government have to achieve that?

Mr. McLoughlin: Investment in research and development is a matter for companies to take into consideration when they come to formulate their plans. I was encouraged by the CBI innovation trends survey which showed that 50 per cent. of companies had plans to increase their expenditure on research and development in 1993.

Mr. Cash: Will my hon. Friend consider the relative position of our research and development in comparison with Japan, the United States, Germany and all the other countries in the EC? Have we done well enough in relation to those countries? If not, we will go down the tubes.

Mr. McLoughlin: I agree with my hon. Friend. If one compares our figures with those for Japan and Germany, the UK is behind. However, we are above the other countries in the European Union.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: Does the Minister agree that it is important for our international competitiveness to improve our business expenditure on civil research and development? Has not the time come for Government incentives to ensure that companies invest in research and development? Does he consider tax incentives to be a good way forward?

Mr. McLoughlin: We will always look at any representations that are made. The Government have a good record on rates of taxation for companies and it is for companies to decide how they wish to invest. There have been huge investments in this country.

Small Business Directives

Mr. Steen: To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he hopes to meet his European counterparts to discuss reducing the number of general directives affecting small businesses emanating from Brussels.

Mr. Neil Hamilton: As my hon. Friend will realise, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has no exact counterpart in Europe—he is unique.
We frequently have meetings with other Ministers in the Council of Ministers and high on our agenda for discussion is deregulation and the need to reduce the regulatory burdens on business which threaten to destroy so many jobs on our continent.

Mr. Steen: The problem is the over-zealous interpretation of general directives by Whitehall officials on which other countries take a relaxed view. Is my hon. Friend aware that in Spain there are 63 fisheries officials based in Madrid—1,000 miles from the coast? That is just like running the Wembley cup final with the referee in Aberdeen. In this country, there are more than 300 fisheries officials looking after fisheries business who are based in ports. In the future, we should make sure that we pursue general directives only when other countries pursue them as rigorously as we do.

Mr. Hamilton: As my hon. Friend will know, I am responsible for the single market compliance unit, so I am always interested in the sort of stories that he brings to the

House. It is vital that Britain does not impose differential burdens on its employers and businesses. We must apply the lightest possible regulatory touch, learn from the experience of other member states and take a more imaginative approach to some of the European Union directives.

Mr. Hain: Is the Minister aware of the widespread concern among those offering bed-and-breakfast facilities and holiday cottages that a forthcoming European directive may prevent them from taking deposits for holidays? That would have a devastating impact on those small businesses. What are the Government doing to prevent that devastation?

Mr. Hamilton: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's interest in deregulation—he is usually on the other side of the argument. I well appreciate the problems, as reported to the hon. Gentleman, that confront bed-and-breakfast establishments and I assure him that they do not lack for an advocate in the Department of Trade and Industry.

Balance Of Trade

Sir Teddy Taylor: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the total balance of trade with the European Union over the most recent five-year period for which figures are available; and what was the balance for manufactures only in the same period.

Mr. Heseltine: In the five years to 1992, the UK had a cumulative trade deficit with the rest of the European Union of 1.8 per cent. of GDP. The deficit in manufactures over the same period was 1.6 per cent. of GDP.

Sir Teddy Taylor: The figures show that our cumulative trade deficit with the European Community has now broken through £100,000 million, which is equivalent to £8,000 per British family. Is not there a case for an inquiry into why there is such a huge deficit compared with the profit that Britain used to have on its trade with Europe before it joined that ridiculous socialist organisation—especially as the Government recently changed the statistical basis for calculation, which makes matters look better?

Mr. Heseltine: I would hope that, without such an inquiry being set up, my hon. Friend would know the answer. The explanation is simple—it is that we have not been sufficiently competitive in selling our goods in the European market in the way that Europe has been successful in selling its goods in Britain. Until the hard lessons of that fact bear upon the industrial, commercial and political world, we will continue to have a deficit.
There is another, important side to the argument. We attracted more than 40 per cent. of the stock of Japanese and almost 40 per cent. of the stock of United States inward investment into the European Community in 1992. That would be at risk if were to question our membership of the European Union.

Export Promoter Initiative

Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on current progress with the export promoter initiative.

Mr. Heseltine: Excellent progress has been made with this initiative and 75 high-quality export promoters have now been recruited.

Mr. Arnold: May I welcome the considerable progress now being made? We have long needed an effective link between the high-quality commercial sections in our overseas missions and our high-quality exporters in Britain, especially the potential exporters in our constituencies.

Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I shall take this opportunity to say a word of thanks to the many companies—rather less than 75—that have seconded high-quality staff to my Department. They are having a profound effect and are working extremely well with the 80 officers that the Department has seconded to survey and report on the 80 senior markets to which we export.

Mrs. Clwyd: How many people in the right hon. Gentleman's Department are involved in promoting the export of coal, so that pits such as the Tower colliery in my constituency will not, through sheer vindictiveness, be forced to close on Friday because of the incompetence of both the Government and British Coal?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Lady can go on making such remarks for as long as she likes, but the reason why British Coal's pits have been closed is that they could not produce a product for which there was a market at a price that people were prepared to pay. If anyone has the slightest doubt about that, he should reflect on why the private sector is negotiating to take over pits that have been closed by British Coal—it is because the private sector believes that it can make a success of them.

Mr. Dickens: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the greatest export promoter for British industry is for it to design and manufacture products that the rest of the world wants to buy, produce them at competitive prices and of excellent quality, deliver them on time and give good after-sales service? That is the great export promoter for Britain and that is what Britain is doing at the moment.

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend is proving himself a great export promoter, by articulately putting over the only message on which industrial export success can be based.

Telecommunications Industry

Ms Hoey: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what support he is giving to the British telecommunications industry.

Mr. McLoughlin: The Government's policies of liberalisation and encouraging competition have created a world-class telecommunications sector and we have seen a 30 per cent. reduction in British Telecom's charges to the consumer in real terms since privatisation. My Department is working closely with all parts of the United Kingdom telecommunications industry, including the manufacturing sector.

Ms Hoey: Does the Minister understand that his obsession with competition is undermining British Telecom's ability to compete as one of the big four or five international telecommunications companies? Why is he not doing something to allow British Telecom to get into the American market instead of giving favoured treatment

to cable operators and other international telecommunications companies to enable them to operate here, without having reciprocal agreements for BT?

Mr. McLoughlin: That was—I Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. Do I understand that there is a disturbance in the House? [HoN. MEMBERS: "Yes.") Then let us end it.

Mr. McLoughlin: That was an extraordinary outburst from the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Ms Hoey). Competition in telecommunications has resulted in a reduction in costs to the consumer. More people have telephones in their homes now than before privatisation. We are keen for British Telecom and the other telecommunications operators to become world-class companies and, by freeing them from the state sector, we have allowed them to do so.

Mr. Dykes: Is the Department fully encouraging the exciting new development of telephones in aeroplanes?

Mr. McLoughlin: I am always interested in any new developments. My hon. Friend, who spends some time on aeroplanes, may take advantage of that service.

Mr. Cousins: Does the Minister know of another exciting experiment—sending video down telephone wires? At long last that is starting in Britain, but the technology comes from France, Canada and the United States. What is he going to do about it?

Mr. McLoughlin: It is being exploited by British Telecom.

Mr. John Marshall: Will my hon. Friend confirm that not only do we have the most liberalised telecommunications market in Europe, but that that liberalisation has led to a dramatic improvement in the quality of service since the industry was privatised and to a massive increase in investment and productivity, all of which the Opposition choose to ignore?

Mr. McLoughlin: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The quality of services has improved, prices have been reduced and both domestic and business consumers have benefited, as have the taxpayer and the economy.

Fire Safety

Mr. Illsley: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish the report of the construction industry task force relating to fire safety.

Mr. Neil Hamilton: The working papers of all seven business task forces—including those of the construction group—were placed in the Library of the House on Wednesday 30 March.

Mr. Illsley: I am grateful to the Minister. Does he believe that there should be much wider publication of those papers, especially the paper relating to the construction industry task force in view of its serious recommendation for the repeal of the Fire Precautions Act 1971? If we repeal that Act, are not fire precautions and safety checks likely to be weakened?

Mr. Hamilton: I do not accept that for a moment. It is vital that we maintain proper regard for safety in any reforms that might take place, and that we will do. The


recommendations of the construction industry task force have since been superseded by a new review of fire legislation and the organisation of fire safety enforcement. Mr. Alf Thompson, the chief officer of the Durham fire service, is one of the five members of the team involved, so I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the concerns of professionals will be taken properly into account.

Trade Missions

Mr. Pawsey: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the countries to which it is planned to send trade missions supported by his Department.

Mr. Needham: Worldwide, more than 20 ministerial visits involving trade missions are planned in the remainder of the year.
On present plans, I intend to visit Argentina, Austria, Bahrain, Brazil, China, Colombia, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Oman, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Taiwan, Thailand and Venezuela.

Mr. Pawsey: Clearly, my hon. Friend will be a very busy and much-travelled man. May I congratulate the Department on the emphasis placed on overseas trade missions? What is the Department's budget for such missions and what emphasis is placed by it on promoting the export of engineering products?

Mr. Needham: The budget for the provision of support for missions is some £1.7 million a year. But the key point is that, with the support of our 75 export promoters, we now have market plans for each of the major 80 markets in the world. In addition, we have a plan in each sector, which in almost every country includes engineering products. We are determined to provide a peerless and first-class service to our engineering companies exporting overseas—a service that rivals anything available in Japan, Germany, France, Italy, the United States, or anywhere else.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: When Ministers and trade missions are abroad will they let it be known to officials of foreign Governments and to business men that in Workington there is a 500,000 sq ft modern factory site, formerly occupied by Leyland National for the manufacture of buses, but now empty? That site is available for inward investment. Will the hon. Gentleman push the factory's availability? We need a new tenant or acquisition by another company.

Mr. Needham: I should be delighted to do what the hon. Member suggests. I should be even more delighted if he were to accompany me. We could go selling as we used to do 30 years ago.

Mr. Mans: Bearing in mind the fact that many previous trade missions have resulted in billions of pounds' worth of aircraft exports, resulting in the creation of many jobs in this country, will my hon. Friend welcome the first flight of the Eurofighter and will he liaise with the Ministry of Defence with a view to setting up a trade mission to sell this aircraft abroad?

Mr. Needham: I have listened to my hon. Friend, and I am sure that the answer is yes.

Coal Industry

Mr. Hanson: To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he next expects to meet the chairman of British Coal to discuss the future of the coal industry.

Mr. Eggar: Both my right hon. Friend and I meet the chairman regularly to discuss a range of coal industry matters.

Mr. Hanson: On the day of the publication of the coal prospectus, would not it be appropriate for the Minister to arrange an urgent meeting with the chairman of British Coal to ensure that the scheme of enhanced redundancy payments for miners will continue after 30 April so that workers in the Tower colliery and in many other pits throughout the country do not have to face an agonising choice between losing redundancy payments and fighting for their jobs?

Mr. Eggar: This is a matter for British Coal, which, I understand, has announced that terms will not be available beyond 30 April.

Mr. Robin Cook: Will the Minister confirm that the prospectus for the sale of British Coal, which has been published today, establishes that the Tower colliery will be placed on a care and maintenance basis despite the weekend vote of the work force that it be kept open? Why is the hon. Gentleman determined to close a pit that is in profit? How can he defend a market that closes pits that produce cheap coal, making possible the production of electricity that is cheaper than gas, nuclear energy or French imports? Why are men who have doubled their productivity being rewarded by being made redundant? Will the hon. Gentleman, during the last few months of public ownership of the mines, halt the redundancy among the miners?

Mr. Eggar: Even by his own standards, the hon. Gentleman is being highly irresponsible. Clearly he has not read the document that has been published. It says quite clearly that the Tower colliery is currently operating, but that British Coal has proposed its closure. It could not be a clearer or fairer representation of the actual position.

Motor Car Production

Mr. Spring: To ask the President of the Board of Trade to what extent the level of United Kingdom motor car production has changed in the past 12 months; and what the equivalent figures are for France and Germany.

Mr. McLoughlin: United Kingdom car production for the year ending January 1994 was 5 per cent. higher than for the year ending January 1993. This compares with falls of 14 per cent. and 22 per cent. in France and Germany respectively.

Mr. Spring: Is my hon. Friend aware that the number of new car registrations is up by about 7 per cent. in the first quarter of this year and that the industry's productivity showed an increase of 7 per cent. in the whole of 1993? Does he agree that the reputation of British cars, once so poor, has been totally transformed in the past 10 years—hence these excellent export performances—and that they are now among the finest in the world?

Mr. McLoughlin: I agree entirely. Ours is truly one of the success stories of the car industry. The United


Kingdom is now securing huge amounts of investment in the motor manufacturing industry, something that was unthought of in the late 1970s.

Mr. Miller: I am sure that the Minister will join me in congratulating Vauxhall Motors at Ellesmere Port on sustaining a massive export effort. Does he share the views expressed by a number of major manufacturers in the area that that export effort would be improved if investment were made in the railway infrastructure, especially the west coast main line and the links into the manufacturing complexes?

Mr. McLoughlin: Investment in the rail industry is important. As the hon. Gentleman says, since 1989 some £200 million has been invested in manufacturing facilities for production of the Astra at Ellesmere Port.

Mr. Fabricant: Is my hon. Friend aware that Toyota, which is sited just between Lichfield and Derby—an area which my hon. Friend knows well—will, when it comes on stream at the end of this year, make Britain a net exporter of cars? Is he further aware that, had it been up to the Opposition, Toyota would not even have looked at Britain because of their introduction of the social chapter?

Mr. McLoughlin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As he rightly says, I know the Toyota factory to which he refers, as it is only two miles from where I live. Toyota made the largest single investment ever made in Europe. It chose the United Kingdom because it was confident in how the Government had transformed the economy.

Points, of Order

Mr. David Harris: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I seek your help on a matter that concerns all hon. Members? It is the general question of how on earth Members can question Ministers about what they are negotiating in the European Union, and what arrangements and agreements they have reached. In particular, has the Minister of Agriculture given you notice of a statement on what was agreed—

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: On fishing.

Mr. Harris: Indeed—on fishing in the Fisheries Council in Luxembourg yesterday. That is a matter of prime importance to fishermen in the south-west and all around the coast, yet we have no knowledge whatever of what was agreed. There are conflicting reports in the media.
Will you, Madam Speaker, use your great office to impress on Ministers the need to report regularly and promptly to the House on such matters? Moreover, should we not look at the great gap in our procedures which means that we cannot get at Ministers effectively immediately before or after such crucial negotiations?

Madam Speaker: I have a good deal of sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman has said. I am sure that those on his own Front Bench have heard it. May I refer him to written question 117 today, which may partially answer his point? Perhaps he can take the matter from there and pursue it through parliamentary questions.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On that point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: As I have now dealt with the matter, there is nothing further to say. As far as I am concerned, it is now finished. We do not continue points of order in debate.

Mr. Tony Benn: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker, to ask your assistance on a matter that concerns hon. Members on both sides of the House. At 2.30 today, you announced, in accordance with normal practice, the death of a good friend of ours, Bob Cryer. Members do die from time to time, but there is no opportunity, save for famous Members of the House, for tributes to be paid.
In three weeks' or a month's time, the Chief Whip will move, That Madam Speaker do issue her warrant to the Clerk of the Crown for a by-election in the room of Bob Cryer. The matter concerns not just him, although it occurs to me now as he was a good friend of mine over a long period. But it would be friendly if the House could find an opportunity at 3.30 so that, when our colleagues pass away, Members who knew them well can stand up and say something about them. Will you consider that, because it would be in line with the feeling of hon. Members?

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Mr. Skinner—does it relate to this matter?

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Yes. May I raise just one additional point to what my right hon. Friend has just said? Only a few months ago, a statement was made—it was on the agenda—about the retirement of the head Librarian. Various people took part in paying compliments to the head Librarian.
I should have thought that, taking a line through that, it would make a lot of sense, in the case of people like Bob and others, for those who wish to pay him a compliment to be able to do so. Will you also consider, Madam Speaker, the precedent of making a statement regarding somebody's passing away, like Bob's, after Question Time when the House is full?
I do not think that the current procedure is quite appropriate; I have always considered that to be the case. I think that, if you take on board that suggestion and the one advanced by my right hon. Friend, it would suit everybody in the House on future occasions.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: On the same point of order, Madam Speaker. I associate myself, from the Government side of the House, with the views expressed by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). I am sure that you are aware that there are too few House of Commons people who are prepared to challenge the establishment and the Executive. Bob Cryer was one of those people, and the House will miss him. I hope that there will be an opportunity to pay tribute to a very distinguished parliamentarian.

Madam Speaker: I am pleased to hear such remarks from both sides of the House. The House will be interested to know that I have been approached privately by a number of hon. Members in the last few hours about this matter. It is a highly sensitive and emotional matter and I hope that the House will allow me to reflect upon it. I think that I have caught the spirit and the feeling of the House in the last five minutes.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will recall that, on 29 March, the Prime Minister made a statement about various undertakings which had been given by the Commission of the European Communities in respect of the treaty of enlargement. The next day—the 30th—it was reported in the press that Mr. Delors had said, "No, no, no." I took the opportunity of asking the Foreign Secretary—the question appears in column 921—how he reconciled these matters, and he said that the assurances had been "reconfirmed".
I then put down a written question, which was replied to today and appears in column 20 of the current Hansard. The hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), a Minister in the Department, replied to my question concerning these undertakings: how they were written down, where they could be seen and by what means this reconfirmation had been made.
The answer he gave is as follows:
The additional confirmation from the Commission to which my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary referred in his oral answer on 30 March took the form of contracts between his office and the office of Mr. Delors.
That is strange, because the rest of the answer states:
The undertakings in the social field announced by my right hon. Friend … were oral assurances and are not recorded in the documents. They will not therefore be incorporated, in whole or in part, in the draft treaty."—[Official Report, 12 April 1994; Vol. 241, c. 20.]
I therefore infer, hope and believe that the word "contracts" should have been "contacts"—there may have


been a telephone call. I ask you therefore, Madam Speaker —quite apart from the use of the prerogative which may be involved—whether that was so, in view of the great importance of these matters to the House.

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has hit the nail on the head. It is just a question of one word. The word that was used was "contracts", whereas the word that should have been used was "contacts". There is a world of difference between the two, and the amendment is now being made.

Mr. Peter Shore: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. You will recall, as I am sure the House does, the great importance that the Prime Minister himself attached to these assurances given by the Commission during his statement to the House on 29 March. We now know that those assurances were given in an entirely oral form. Surely it is right that the House should have a record of those oral contacts so that we can judge for ourselves just how binding, in practice, they may turn out to be.

Madam Speaker: As the right hon. Gentleman will be aware, that is of course a much greater matter than a simple slip of a word. If he wishes to pursue the matter to which he refers, he must do so through the usual channels.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTION FOR FRIDAY 29 APRIL

Members successful in the ballot were:

Sir John Hannam
Mr. Michael Clapham
Mr. John Spellar

Fair Treatment for Widowers

Mr. Hartley Booth: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to ensure fair treatment for widowers.
I say immediately that my Bill deals with widowers with dependent children. Some 10 per cent. of all lone parents are men. If one discounts those who were never married, there are about 60,000 isolated widowers with children, who are a forgotten minority in our country.
The problem is that the treatment that widowers and their children receive is different from that received by widows and their children. The treatment amounts to discrimination, and results in spiralling poverty and hardship; it frequently splits the children from their fathers when they are taken into care.
Why do we have the problem? There are two reasons. The first is the system in this country, and the second is due to history. We have a system that is rigid; it is ordained by Whitehall on nationally made assumptions. It is inflexible, with little ability to deal with minority hard luck cases.
As for the history, the subject was raised by our much-respected colleague, the late Mrs. Judith Chaplin, who died last year. In 1948, a system was introduced on the basis that widows needed more support than widowers. At that time, one woman was employed for every two men, but that is no longer the case. Now, for every 10 women employed, 11 men are employed. It is no longer possible to assume that, when a woman dies, the children will suffer financially as a result.
That was the unhappy position of discrimination and inequality in which Mr. John Kao, who sits in the Public Gallery with one of his children—

Madam Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is unaware of the fact that we do not refer to people outside the Chamber. There are Members and strangers, and we do not refer to a stranger in the House. We refer only to a colleague in the Chamber.

Mr. Booth: I am obliged to you, Madam Speaker. I was not aware of that rule.
The wife of one of my constituents died on 3 November 1990. My constituent was left with six children under the age of 15, the youngest of whom was only five and a half months old, and the oldest is still at school now, aged 17. My constituent has had to bring up his children alone in a position that has been not only disadvantageous, but positively discriminatory.
My constituent was unemployed at the time of his wife's death, and the authorities told him to get a job, as he would then be better off than he was on social security. That was wrong. He would have had to find a job that would give him £400 a week. Of course, such a job was not available. His previous employment a few years earlier had provided only £250 a week. My constituent was being asked to obtain the impossible.
What was my constituent receiving from our system? He was receiving £114 a week. Had he been a widow, he would have received £1,000 on the death of his spouse, and between £198 and £250 per week.
That is not the final twist in this unhappy tale. Had he been fortunate enough to obtain a job earning £400 a week, every penny—apart from child allowance—would have been removed. Had he been a widow, none of it, apart from


the small amount of £10, would have been removed. The benefit would have been ring-fenced and secure had he been a widow, but it was removed because he was a widower. That is further discrimination, and not only my constituent suffered but his children. I went to see Mr. Kao —may I refer to him that way?

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman may refer to his constituent in that general way.

Mr. Booth: I am learning on my feet, Madam Speaker.
I saw Mr. Kao at his house, and found him to be an admirable manager of a difficult situation. After paying for fuel, he had £64 left to spend each week on the seven mouths in that household. After allowing for clothing, only 80p per day each is left for Mr. Kao and his children—an appalling situation.
I was extremely angry that such a thing could happen in this country. It is an indictment of poverty in a civilised nation, of discrimination against men and their children, and of a social security system that has the laudable aim of targeting those most in need but has failed in this case.
The Government cannot use the excuse that there is no money, or produce figures to show that a huge amount would have to be spent if every widower were to be dealt with. The Government have a policy of targeting those most in need. Mr. Kao and his children are most in need, and they are not being helped.
My Bill hopes to address that situation. We must help Mr. Kao and other widowers and their children. I hope that my Bill will do so.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Hartley Booth, Sir John Hannam, Mr. Michael Alison, Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman, Mr. Alan Williams, Mr. Michael Bates, Mr. Patrick Thompson, Mr. Gary Streeter, Mrs. Edwina Currie, Mr. David Lidington and Mr. Malcolm Bruce.

FAIR TREATMENT FOR WIDOWERS

Mr. Hartley Booth accordingly presented a Bill to ensure fair treatment for widowers: And the same was. read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 6 May, and to be printed. [Bill 90.]

Orders of the Day — Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill

As amended (in Committee and in the Standing Committee), considered.

New clause 77

PUBLIC CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOLIC LIQUOR

'.—(1) It shall be an offence for any person to consume any alcoholic liquor in any public place and a constable may arrest without warrant any person committing such an offence.

(2) In this section—
alcoholic liquor" has the same meaning as in the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976.
public place" means any place to which the public do or may have access which is not licensed premises in semis of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976.'.—[Mr. Bill Walker.]

—Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Bill Walker: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Speaker: I understand that with this it will be convenient to discuss also new clause 81—Public consumption of alcoholic liquor by persons under the age of eighteen—
'.—(1) It shall be an offence for any person under the age of eighteen years to consume any alcoholic liquor in any public place and a constable may arrest without warrant any person committing such an offence.
(2) In this section— 
alcoholic liquor" has the same meaning as in the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976.
public place" means any place to which the public do or may have access which is not licensed premises in terms of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976.'.

Mr. Walker: I welcome the fact that present in the Chamber are the hon. Members for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey), for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) and for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion). I must also declare an interest, as vice-chairman of the all-party Scotch whisky group. Other officers and members of that group are present in the Chamber, and they support the measures that I have before the House.
Neither I nor any of my supporters oppose the consumption of alcoholic liquor. How could we, when we are members of the all-party Scotch whisky group? However, we oppose the drinking of liquor in public places, where its consumption creates a nuisance to others.
Legislation currently passing through the House seems likely to provide the opportunity for off-licences, supermarkets and distillery shops to open on Sunday. I support Sunday opening, particularly that of distillery shops. Mine is a large rural constituency, where tourism is a vital aspect of my constituents' well-being. It seems nonsense to us that people can go around and view our distillery shops on a Sunday, yet cannot buy the products on display. We should change the legislation.
We must face the fact that the enlightened legislation could be at risk. It might not be well received. If individuals take the opportunity to shop on Sunday and purchase the alcoholic drink, then immediately go outside and consume it outside the door of the shop, supermarket,


off-licence or wherever, that would create the kind of nuisance that would bring the enlightened legislation into disrepute.
As every hon. Member knows, in every city and town, and in many villages, there are public areas—parks, civic squares and other places where the public congregate—where groups of people drink alcohol and create a public nuisance. The experiment conducted in my home town of Dundee demonstrated that, with adequate local supervision and policing, it is possible to prevent that nuisance.
Sadly, it also showed that such action can drive the nuisance into other parts of the community. Consequently —I hope that my hon. Friend on the Front Bench is listening—a statutory measure seems to be the only way to address that problem. I suggest that my new clauses are the logical way to do so, particularly, as I have mentioned, with the other legislation that is going through the House.
Another matter of great concern to all of us in our constituencies is under-age drinking. We have seen the problem increase over the years. It is particularly sad to see under-age drinking in public places, and it is an ever-increasing problem. New clause 81 sets out to address that unique problem. Consequently, if my hon. Friend is to tell me that, for technical reasons, he cannot accept new clause 77, he might consider that the under-age aspect of new clause 81 merits much more consideration. I am sure that he will realise and recognise the importance of addressing that nuisance and social problem.
It will not be good enough for us to wring our hands and try to wish the matter away. All of us who take an interest in the well-being and welfare of the Scotch whisky industry recognise that it is awfully easy to blame it for the failings of individuals. I have to be careful because, as the House knows, I am teetotal. I do not want be looked on as the "unco' guid". That is the last type of image that I would wish to project.
I believe that social drinking is a huge asset in a community. I must make that quite clear. I believe that alcoholic drink—however and wherever it is consumed, if it is done properly and does not create a nuisance for others —can be beneficial to the well-being of the community atmosphere.
However, there will always be people who will ignore and put at risk the well-being of others, and will abuse the system. The Bill gave me and my hon. Friends the opportunity to do something about that. I hope that the Minister will say that he recognises that the problem cannot and will not be wished away, and that he recognises that it will have to be legislated away.
We cannot expect that people whom we wish to change will change simply because we ask them to. Sadly, one of the great problems is that people who are subjected to the ghastly problem of an alcoholic disease are not the kind that one can chat to. Therefore, we must give powers to the local constabulary to remove those people if they are creating a nuisance in a public place.
I recognise that the Minister might ask what would happen in the case of someone sitting outside a pub. If there were a table and four chairs outside a pub in Paris, everyone would know that they were part of the pub or café, but, if one sees a table and four chairs outside a pub in Scotland, one knows that a warrant sale is taking place —our pubs do not have tables and chairs outside. I

therefore believe that there is no risk of the public place, as defined in new clause 81, being mistaken for anything other than what was intended.
New clause 81 has been deliberately worded to fit exactly what I call the Scottish domain:
'public place' means any place to which the public do or may have access which is not licensed premises in terms of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976.
If a country pub has a large garden, that garden will be recognised as part of the pub, which would not be the case with a park or any open space that the public use for recreational activities.

Mr. George Kynoch: I have listened with great interest to my hon. Friend's argument. He mentioned tourism and its importance to his constituency, and he will be aware that many overseas visitors come to our part of Scotland. They sometimes eat picnics on the way, and it is often the continental custom to have a bottle of wine with lunch. How would my hon. Friend deal with a tourist—not the driver of a car, but a passenger—having a glass of wine with a picnic lunch in a public place?

Mr. Walker: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, but I have to tell him that such a case could covered with no difficulty. If he examines the new clauses, he will find that they would give policemen the appropriate power.
However, I do not believe that any policemen in Scotland's tourist areas would do anything to upset the tourist industry. More than any other group, the police help tourism in my area by being very helpful to visitors. I do not anticipate any problems in this respect. Indeed, I examined many such issues when considering how to word the new clauses, and it is why I had them worded as concisely and as clearly as I could.
I am assured by the legal brains who know much more about such matters than I do that the new clauses are technically satisfactory. However, I accept that my hon. Friend the Minister must, on behalf of the Government, consider how to fit them in with the legislation as a whole. He may come back to me and suggest that, for some reason, the new clauses do not quite measure up, in which case I hope that he will be positive and say that the Government have something in mind to deal with the problem. I believe that the new clauses would deal with the problem, but I would understand if my hon. Friend the Minister were to tell me that, for technical reasons, he would like to travel another route.
I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch) for his helpful intervention. That is all I have to say at this stage, other than that I hope that the Minister will be able to make a constructive and positive reply.

Mr. William McKelvey: Perhaps I, too, should declare an interest, as we have just heard the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) disclose his interest as vice-chairman of the Scotch whisky group. I, for my sins, chair the all-party Scotch whisky group, and we promote the industry wherever we can. Unlike my colleague, I have to confess that from time to time, and in moderation, I consume some of our national product, so I am not taking an anti-alcohol stance; I wish merely to highlight the problems in most of our city and town centres.


It has already been mentioned that the councils in Aberdeen and Dundee experimented by designating certain areas in which it would be an offence to drink in public. It was successful in those areas, but, as a by-product, it drove the people who had abused alcohol in the streets in those areas into the back streets and the housing schemes. So the inhabitants, especially those who live in housing schemes, have been lumbered with what we removed from the city centres and tourist spots.
It is expected that, in other legislation to come before the House shortly, the laws on opening hours in Scotland on Sundays will be brought more into line with those in England, especially so that off-sales can open on Sundays during certain periods to sell liquor. That means that, in areas in which people are demented for six days of the week, they might well soon be demented for the seventh day, too, so some hon. Members are already expressing opposition to the measure.
4 pm
We had hoped that, if the Government took the provisions of the new clauses seriously on board, perhaps we could placate at least those hon. Members who fear the nuisance caused by people drinking alcohol in the housing schemes, and especially by under-age drinkers, because they could be controlled and the problem alleviated.
The hon. Member for Tayside, North said that he did not wish to be thought unco' guid—to use the term that Burns would use. As the two of us bear the same christian name, that reminds me of "Holy Willie's Prayer". Not only has a Conservative Member introduced the new clause., but now another hon. Member who is interested in the alcohol trade and who confesses to consuming alcohol in moderation, but who understands the problems, especially for householders who have to put up with the menace week after week, day in and day out, is speaking in favour. I understand why such people resist the idea of the off-licence in their housing scheme being allowed to open more.
I hope that Ministers will be able to conceive of a way of giving licensing authorities more extensive powers to designate areas—perhaps areas of particular nuisance—where opening should not be allowed on Sundays. In a former life, I was chairman of a licensing committee, and I had the dubious distinction of having managed to award the first licence to a pavement public house, in as much as the owner of the public house also owned part of the pavement and could put out tables and chairs on it. At the time, that caused an uproar in Dundee, because people thought that it would be the ultimate in degradation.

Mr. John McAllion: The weather?

Mr. McKelvey: Not only the weather. But I recall that, one bright summer, there were only three days on which anyone was prepared to sit outside to sip their lager. Anyway, what happened was not the horror story that people feared.
If we dignify and humanise the activities of people who consume alcohol, that will assist the areas of the trade that the hon. Member for Tayside, North described as the reasonable and interested bodies that prepare and sell alcohol. They, too, are concerned about alcohol abuse, and supply not only information but funds to ensure that the information reaches the public.
I hope that the Minister will consider the matter seriously and that, if the new clauses are not acceptable in

their present form, he will at least accept the spirit—perhaps I should not use that word, so I shall say that I hope that he will accept their intention. The intention is to solve a problem and to ease the passage of a forthcoming piece of legislation, for the sake of those who wish, mainly honourably, for access to alcohol through off-licences and supermarkets on Sundays in Scotland.

Mr. McAllion: May I make a hat trick of hon. Members declaring their interest? You have heard, Madam Speaker, from the chairman and the vice-chairman of the all-party Scotch whisky group. You are now hearing from the secretary of the group. I probably tend towards the chairman's position in relation to the consumption of alcohol, rather than to the vice-chairman's position.
Hon. Members should understand that we are not trying by means of the new clause to ban social drinking in public places. We are not against people having a drink when they attend a fete, go to the highland games or have a picnic in a park, when they may want a glass of wine with their meal.
We are trying to address the problem of those who cause a nuisance to other people by drinking, whether on the street in the centre of towns or in housing schemes in Scotland, especially in the peripheral housing estates which surround most cities in Scotland. There is a problem there of people drinking outside off-licences and causing a severe nuisance to people who live adjacent to the off-licence.
I have always believed that it is nonsense that, in Scotland, it should be an offence for someone under 18 to go into an off-licence to purchase liquor and an offence for an adult to go into an off-licence to purchase liquor on behalf of someone who is under 18, but that it is not an offence for someone under 18 to stand outside the off-licence and consume alcoholic liquor. If some of the neighbours called the police and said that there were youngsters drinking wine—fortified wine, not the French variety—nothing could be done. The police would say that the youngsters were not committing an offence, and that there was nothing that they could do.
Years ago, I brought the problem to the attention of the Under-Secretary of State for cotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton). He responded by saying that the Government had pilot projects in Scotland, one of which was in Dundee, under which it was an offence for anyone to consume liquor in certain areas. He said that the Scottish Office would see how the pilot schemes worked out and would then make a decision about what changes to the law would be made.
The Minister has peddled that line for a number of years. It is time that we stopped waiting for the outcome of the pilot projects. The Government should get off their backside and start to do something about the problem, which is serious for many people living in cities.
I know that such schemes are not the perfect solution, because I know what happened in Dundee. We were able to clear away from the centre of the city the people who sat drinking strong lagers and fortified wines. However, they went to the top of Hilltown and sat on the benches that were meant for mothers whose toddlers were using the swings. They sat there drinking, and mothers and toddlers were frightened to go into the parks. It is not a solution simply to say that we should extend the area to cover the whole city.


We know that people who have drink problems—who suffer from alcoholism—will not be cured simply because we make it an offence to drink alcohol in public places. All we shall do is drive those people into areas where they think that they will not be discovered. They will go under bridges and into parks. They will find derelict sites and they may go into subways which take people under busy roads. They will sit and drink there, in the hope that they will not be suspected.
Although I hope that the Minister pays attention to the points in the new clauses, I also hope that he will realise that they are not a solution, and that they may simply create a different kind of problem in a different area of Scottish cities.
I am especially concerned about new clause 81, which specifically makes it an offence for anyone under the age of 18 to consume alcoholic liquor in a public place in Scotland. During the Easter recess, I was asked by one of the detached youth workers who work in my constituency to visit an area of Dundee called Mid Craigie, and to speak to about a dozen youngsters in the area about the problems facing people under 21 who live in schemes in which there are high levels of unemployment and poverty.
I spoke to the youngsters, and it immediately became obvious that one of the major reasons why they turned to drink—and to drugs, in some cases—was that there was nothing for them to do in their area. No facilities were available in their area specifically for young people.
The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) knows Dundee well, so he knows that Mid Craigie is adjacent to Whitfield. He knows that there is a community centre there, and he may say, "Why do the youngsters from Mid Craigie not go to the community centre in Whitfield and get involved in a useful pursuit there?"
Such matters are very territorial when people are young. People living in Mid Craigie would never go to Whitfield to attend a function, because they would be frightened that they would be attacked by the local youths; the same is true of the idea that people from Whitfield would go to Mid Craigie. That is true of any area of any Scottish city. Kids need facilities in their own areas if they are to be attracted away from drugs, drinking and other illegal activities.
The same goes for the city centre. It is okay to provide discos and youth centres in the centre of Dundee, but many youngsters do not have the price of a bus fare to get into the centre. If they cannot afford the entrance fees to the discos, they will try to do something else in their own area.
Unfortunately, in Scotland today, a number of off-licences, especially in the peripheral housing schemes in our cities, are stocking up on the kind of drinks which get people drunk quickly and which are targeted directly at the young. Drinks such as Diamond White and Diamond Blush—fortified types of drink which are meant to get people drunk quickly—are being stocked in the hope that under-age people will go into the off-licences to buy them.
Even the very suggestion, which is often made, that people should drink from the neck of the bottle rather than out of a glass, and that it is meant to be a designer way in which to drink, as seen in all the advertisements in the alcohol industry, is meant to get people drunk faster. If one drinks directly from the bottle, the alcohol gets into one's bloodstream more quickly.
There is a serious problem, so we must tackle the root cause of young people turning to drink or drugs. One of the main reasons is the way in which the House has treated young people for a considerable number of years. There is rampant youth unemployment in all our cities.
I know that the Minister will say that there is a youth training place available for every youngster who wants one between the ages of 16 and 18. He should come to Dundee and speak to the youngsters that I spoke to, some of whom are 19 and have gone through that age bracket without ever being offered any youth training place. They have never been given a place or the chance to make a mark in the economy.
As a result, those youngsters had to apply for severe hardship allowances, which many were denied because of the strict criteria set to qualify for them. As a result, they did not receive housing benefit or income support, and many felt that there was no alternative but to turn to crime, or to take to drink or drugs, and the only place they could do that was outside off-licences in the city.
While I support the idea of cracking down on those people who cause a social nuisance in our society, especially in Scotland, I support even more the Government beginning to draw attention to the problems facing young people in the cities in Scotland, to those youngsters' lack of opportunity, to the poverty that affects young people in Scotland, and to the fact that they have few rights. It is high time the Government began to treat young people as equal members of our society. If they did, we might not need such debates in the House.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: May I begin by apologising to the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker)? I was in another meeting, and I literally had to gallop to get here. Given my advanced age, that is not perhaps the wisest thing to do.
I happily added my name to the new clauses, because in my constituency there are three localities where a great deal of public drinking takes place. The Minister visited one of the those areas—not for the purpose of public drinking, but to look at the poor housing and some of the fine housing renovation which is taking place. I am referring to the east end of Greenock, where my constituents were pleased that the Minister made time to come along.
Many of the people who indulge in such public drinking suffer from alcohol abuse. May I catch the Minister's attention for a moment, if the Whip, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick), could keep quiet for a second?
What guidance is given to the police to deal with that public drinking, which is a terrible nuisance to ordinary, decent people who are out shopping or are in the streets for lawful and legitimate purposes? Those drinkers, who are often heavy drinkers, can become extremely aggressive and abusive when in drink. I am grateful to the Whip for looking after me in that redcap style of his.

Mr. Keith Vaz: Redcoat.

Dr. Godman: Yes, a red coat would be more appropriate with that sun tan. May I return to more serious matters? I only wish that the Whip would stop clowning about.
In dealing with the problems related to public drinking, not only by youngsters but by men and women of all ages, what is the Government's current proposal for designated


places? In terms of dealing with public drinking by people suffering from alcohol abuse and misuse, designated places play an important role.
I also ask the Minister what financial assistance the Scottish Office is giving to Inverclyde council, and, indeed, other councils, with regard to alcoholism. They do fine work in dealing with those who suffer the terrible plight of alcohol misuse and abuse. If the Minister cannot accept the new clauses, his officials and representatives from the police forces in such areas where drinking in public takes place need to get together to tackle much more effectively than hitherto that terrible public nuisance, while at the same time protecting those who suffer from the terrible illness of alcohol abuse and misuse.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): As a former military policeman, the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) will appreciate that many of these matters are for the operational discretion of police officers on the spot. Of course, the chief constable of Strathclyde will be aware of that. We have not given him specific guidance on these matters, but we take seriously the issues involved with the health and education of young people.
Obviously, I am very much against drinking to excess in any form. We are concerned about health, and the consequences of drinking to excess. We must influence young people positively about the use of alcohol, and highlight the health and other consequences associated with its misuse.
At present, many Scottish schools tackle alcohol issues within the context of comprehensive health and social education programmes. The Scottish Office, the Health Education Board for Scotland, the Scottish Council on Alcohol and health boards are also involved, and parents have a fundamental role in the education of their children.

Mr. McAllion: rose—

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to learn that we have given an increased allocation of £138,000 this year to the Scottish Council on Alcohol. The council will be assisting with these matters with particular reference to young people.

Mr. McAllion: The Minister mentioned education about alcohol in our schools. Can he tell the House when that education programme begins in schools in Scotland? Representatives of the alcohol project that is currently working in Whitfield, Mid Craigie and Linlathen in my constituency told me recently that they have evidence that children as young as eight and nine are beginning to drink or to experiment with drink. Will such an education programme go into primary schools as well as secondary schools?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman makes the territorial point that, whereas action is being taken in Whitfield, that may not apply with equal strength in Mid Craigie. I shall certainly make inquiries on that point.
I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the byelaws with regard to Dundee, where he is from, have been confirmed by the Scottish Office. Indeed, we are taking action. It is for local authorities to come forward with proposals, and the

Scottish Office will process them as quickly as possible. We are already taking action on a large number of fronts. We recognise that the problem of under-age drinking needs to be tackled on several fronts.

Mr. Bill Walker: rose—

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I shall give way when I have developed my argument and explained what we are doing on byelaws.
For example, we have made it an offence for any person to buy alcohol or to sell it to a person under the age of 18, and for a person under the age of 18 to buy alcohol for his or any other person's consumption. We already have powers and penalties to deal with unacceptable behaviour which is, rightly, associated with drinking in public places.
Offences have been introduced relatively recently in the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 and the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980 covering, first, drunk and incapable behaviour; secondly, obstruction of the lawful passage of another person in a public place; thirdly, acts of vandalism; and fourthly, the banning of alcohol from sporting events.
There have been a number of other law and order measures, such as tightening up the giving of late-night licences. In addition, behaviour likely to cause alarm or annoyance can constitute the common law crime of breach of the peace, and the penalties available to the courts for these offences include sizeable fines and imprisonment.

Mr. Bill Walker: I would not have tabled these new clauses if I had considered that the byelaws were working effectively. The designated places experience in Dundee has demonstrated that, while one can remove the problem from the areas that are designated, there is nothing now in statute that allows Dundee city council to deal with all the other areas that people have gone to. Therein lies the problem.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am aware of the problem that my hon. Friend mentions—that the successful introduction of a byelaw can displace the problem to a neighbouring area. I can only suggest that, when local authorities consider byelaw applications, they also consider whether they wish to extend the areas concerned to cover displacement. If there is clear justification for such an extension, it may be helpful to do so. Local authorities are free to come forward with proposals in the matter.
As for the proposals that we have put before local authorities about byelaws, we have asked them to consider making byelaws prohibiting the consumption of alcohol in designated public places, and have invited them to put forward proposals.
Such byelaws have been very successful in Motherwell and Dundee, and they have been specifically targeted at particular trouble spots. They offer a useful means of combating the problem of behaviour by people of all ages, and have been widely welcomed. The maximum penalty for breaching the byelaws is £500. I hope that more local authorities throughout Scotland will come forward with proposals, which, as I have already confirmed, we will process quickly.

Dr. Godman: On the question of under-age drinking, is the Minister trying to tell the House that he is satisfied with the measures employed by his officials and others in dealing with the activities of unscrupulous off-licensees


who will sell booze, if they can get away with it, to kids of any age? I do not believe that the measures currently in force are tough enough to cope with these dealers.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman is speaking about offences that are being committed. It is a question of evidence. When the evidence is available, the police are in a position to take it forward. It is exactly the same with glue sniffing. When products that can be misused are sold across the counter illegally, it should be reported to the police and action should be taken.
We have no plans to introduce a general offence prohibiting the consumption of alcohol in public places by people of any age, or specifically by people under 18. The reason is that given by my hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch): an absolute ban on drinking in public places would penalise innocent activities, such as family picnics and other occasions, where public consumption of alcohol is perfectly acceptable.
It would be a draconian measure to introduce a general offence, as not all of Scotland has entirely the same problems or suffers them to the same extent. The way forward is through byelaws. A whole range of legislative penalties is already in place to combat disorderly conduct and behaviour associated with drinking in public places, such as rowdyism.
To mention a very obvious point, I am in the business of encouraging tourism in Scotland. It would discourage tourism to put in place a total ban, as suggested, which could relate to picnics, beach parties, fetes and so on.

Mr. Bill Walker: Nonsense.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: My hon. Friend says, "Nonsense," but it would penalise innocent activities such as family picnics, and that is going far too far. Although this is essentially a technical matter, the new clauses are flawed in that they propose offences without associated penalty provisions. In view of the range of measures that have been put forward by the Scottish Office to combat the problems associated with drinking—including under-age drinking in public—I hope that my hon. Friend will withdraw the motion.

Mr. Bill Walker: Some of the things that my hon. Friend said were not terribly helpful. I remind him that we have laws on statute in Scotland where instructions have been given to the police to practise the application of those laws in what is deemed to be a favourable manner to the community. There is nothing odd about the police having such discretion—it happens all the time. In particular, it has given me cause for concern about certain homosexual activities in my constituency with regard to discretion. [Interruption.] I say that because I am pointing to the fact that a statute exists, and the police and procurators have been given guidance about not pressing prosecutions.
My hon. Friend suggests to me that, in a tourist area— I yield to no one in the House in the defence of tourist interests—Tayside police would behave in a manner that would upset tourists. That is not living in the real world. I hope that the pedants who wrote my hon. Friend's reply would remember that those of us who are constituency Members live in the real world.
I recognise that byelaws have a part to play. My concern is that in city such as Dundee—I refer to Dundee because experiments have been carried out there—it is difficult constantly to change the designated areas if those involved keep moving. We may be forced into designating the doors and entrances to every off-licence and supermarket, and anywhere else that sells alcoholic liquor. There are real problems.
I hope that my hon. Friend understands that I will not press the new clauses to a Division because I recognise that there are technical reasons why they could not become law. I understand that changes would have been required even if the vote had been won. I hope that the debate has at least brought the problem, as hon. Members see and experience it, to the attention of the Government and their advisers. Those who want enlightened laws on licensing to come into practice also want to deal with the problems with drinking.
I hope that the Scottish Office will realise that the matter will not go away. We will continue to pursue it because, until we find satisfactory answers, our constituents will continually press us to do something about it. Having put that on record, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 82

HOMOSEXUALITY ON MERCHANT SHIPS AND IN THE ARMED FORCES: NORTHERN IRELAND

'.—(1) In the Homosexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 1982, the following are revoked—

(a) in article 3(1) (homosexual acts in private), the words "and Article 5 (merchant seamen)"; and
(b) article 5 (homosexual acts on merchant ships).

(2) Article 3(4) of the Homosexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 1982 (homosexual acts in the armed forces) is revoked.

(3) This section, and the associated entry relating to the 1982 Order in Schedule 11, shall come into force on the date this Act is passed.'.— [Mr. Michael.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 96

AMENDMENT OF SECTION 170 OF THE ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1988

'.-In section 170 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, after subsection (7) there shall be inserted the words—
(7A) A constable may arrest a person without warrant whom he has reasonable cause to suspect of having committed an offence under this section..—[Mr. Vaz.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Keith Vaz: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I do not wish to detain the House for very long on this matter. I have had discussions with the Minister and I am delighted to say that he has agreed to meet a delegation of my constituents to discuss the issue of hit-and-run drivers, and the power of the police to arrest those responsible for such activities.
I pay tribute to the Leicester Mercury, my local newspaper, which launched the Campaign for Justice, and to Mr. Carter, the editor, who took up the issue of the lack of police powers to deal with those responsible for hit-and-run offences. As the law stands, offenders can be brought to justice only by a summons, unless another serious offence is committed at the same time.


I came prepared with many cuttings from the Leicester Mercury, describing the huge number of incidents during the past few years. Pregnant women have been knocked down, and hit-and-run drivers have disappeared, and the police have had no powers to deal with such offences. Last year, I introduced the Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill to change the law, but the Government opposed that measure. I hope that the Campaign for Justice will be successful.
4.30pm
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) has also been extremely helpful. He and the Minister persuaded me that the matter should be considered in great detail at a later stage, rather than tacked on to this long Bill. I am happy to accept the assurances by both colleagues that they will consider the matter carefully. I therefore do not intend to press the clause to a vote, because I believe that the climate and conditions for a rational discussion of this important matter exist.
Finally, I am grateful to the Police Federation for its support. It wanted an amendment tabled to section 163 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. I was not able to do so, because time has moved on, but I hope that we can have a sensible discussion, and that new measures will be proposed later this year.

Mr. Alun Michael: I shall be extremely brief. The House and the Minister would be wise to heed such a potent combination as my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), the Leicester Mercury and the Police Federation when there is a call for a change in the law.
Surely it is an anomaly that such a serious offence can be dealt with only by summons. I hope that, by dealing with the callousness shown by those involved in hit-and-run offences, this is one of the occasions when we can agree across the Chamber about the need to amend the law swiftly.
I am happy to be able to respond to the comments of my hon. Friend, and to tell the Minister that the Opposition will be happy to assist in the process, and to be as helpful as we can if the Minister is able to find a way to respond positively and quickly to hon. Friend's eloquent plea.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): The Government's view is that the police have adequate powers of arrest for offences related to road accidents. Since I have agreed to meet the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) and to discuss the matter in the Home Office, where I hope that I will be able to explain to him and to any of his constituents he wishes to bring why I think that the present powers are adequate, I do not propose to go into them at the Dispatch Box today.

Mr. Vaz: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 101

CERTIFICATION OF PRISONS

'The Secretary of State shall at least once in each year certify in respect of each prison, remand centre and young offender institution—

(a) the certified normal accommodation of the prison, remand centre or young offender institution, that is. to say the number of prisoners who can be satisfactorily accommodated in cells and dormitories; and

(b) the certified regime capacity, that is to say the number of prisoners for which the prison can provide an acceptable regime.'.—[Mr. Michael.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Michael: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Through the clause we want to make a positive contribution to resolving the major problem of prison overcrowding. We propose that once each year the Home Secretary shall
certify in respect of each prison, remand centre and young offender institution
the normal accommodation of that institution. By that we mean
the number of prisoners who can be satisfactorily accommodated in cells and dormitories".
Secondly, we want the Home Secretary to state, at least once each year, the certified regime capacity—the number of prisoners for which an acceptable regime can be provided. I emphasise the word "acceptable" as it is crucial to any understanding of the dangers of prisons at present. Governors warn that overcrowding is pushing prisons ever closer to explosion point. The House of Commons should respond to their warnings by finding a mechanism to deal with the problem.
The Minister who responded to the corresponding debate in Committee ridiculed the amendment that we had tabled. He said, basically, that requiring the Home Secretary to come to the House to request permission to go above certified numbers would be too bureaucratic and would cause too much delay. We have been constructive in our response and have come up with a very simple proposal, which would require the Home Secretary merely to look at the situation in each prison every year. He would have to take account not only of the accommodation provided but of the possibility of dealing properly with prisoners. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman who is responding to this debate will be more positive in respect of some of these issues than was his hon. Friend who, replying in Committee, said:
The aim of the prison service is to house prisoners, without overcrowding, in accommodation close to their home area, but it must find suitably secure accommodation for those committed to custody by the courts. Those aims may be in conflict at times." —[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 8 March 1994; c. 1246.]
We understand that there will be conflict between aims. Hence the need for a resolution mechanism and for accountability to Parliament with regard to the way in which the Home Secretary reconciles the different demands. The surprising thing about the response that I have just quoted is that it contains no mention of reform. The Minister did not say anything about the need to provide appropriate psychiatric treatment and education —the type of regime that leads to reform. The hon. Gentleman seemed to regard this as merely an exercise in numbers rather than as an exercise in the reform of prisoners.
Over the past year, prison numbers have shot up. In the first 11 months of 1993, the total increased by 16 per cent. That is an average of nearly 600 a month. The number of remand prisoners rose by 44 per cent. in that period, while the number of prisoners under 21 years of age increased by 22 per cent. I can bring some of that information up to date by saying that on Friday 18 March, there were 48,571 people in prison and 522 in police cells. I warn the House


that the holding in cells of people who ought to be in prison is another demonstration of the failure of the system to work properly.
Several consequences flow from prisoner numbers. The Director General of the Prison Service, Mr. Derek Lewis, tells us that the atmosphere in the prisons following the recent sharp increase in numbers is more volatile than at any time since the Strangeways riots of 1990. In his submission to the inquiry following those riots, the then director general referred to overcrowding as the single factor that dominated prisoners' lives, produced often intolerable pressure on staff and, as a consequence, soured industrial relations, skewed managerial effort and diverted management away from positive developments. In his report on the riots, Lord Justice Woolf unreservedly endorsed this assessment of the effect of overcrowding. He said:
Overcrowding is felt most sharply in the Victorian-built city centre prisons, which always bear the brunt of rising numbers.
I pay tribute to the governors and prison officers who have to cope in these establishments. I refer in particular to Cardiff prison, which is on the border of my constituency.
Our amendment would not prevent the Government from squeezing extra prisoners into the gaols, but it would require them to state an upper limit. They would have to give careful thought to the question of the number of people that they could afford to allow to be accommodated in a prison without putting at risk the key role of the reform of offenders.
It is pointless to run a prison service in such a way that, in the long term, prisoners are more likely to offend again when they are released and, in the short term, the safety of prison staff is put at risk. Overcrowding results in cramped and unpleasant physical conditions. It also results in restricted regimes, as overcrowded prisons do not have the space, facilities or resources to provide prisoners with a full range of training, work and educational opportunities.
Judge Stephen Tumim, Chief Inspector of Prisons, commented in his annual report for 1991-92—so this reference relates to the immediate position:
Local prisons for men do not offer sufficient time out of cell or a satisfactory range of opportunities. Those we visited in 1991/92 remained overcrowded and invariably short of space. The number of inmates held in local prisons should be determined not by the number of beds that can be crammed in but by the facilities available to contain people decently and provide them with out of cell activity.
That is why the new clause deals with both those requirements.
Lord Justice Woolf said in his report on prison disturbances:
It is also clear from the evidence which the Inquiry has received from prisoners, that the conditions which exist at present in our prisons cause a substantial number of prisoners to leave prison more embittered and hostile to society than when they arrived. They leave prison, therefore, in a state of mind where they are more likely to re-offend.
In an atmosphere in which the Home Secretary has used the one-line slogan "prison works" we should pay more attention to ensuring that prisons work effectively in reforming those sent to them. That is how to ensure that prisons work, not simply by cramming in numbers without thought. Overcrowding is a recipe not only for re-offending on release but for rioting in prisons. Many

recent reports have underlined the fact that it increases tension and frustration among those forced to live cheek by jowl in cramped conditions.
We should pay particular attention to the comments of the chairman of the Prison Governors' Association, Mr. Brendan O'Friel. At the association's recent conference, he said:
We are building up a significant number of prisoners with a justifiable grudge against the Prison Service for moving them so far away from home … Steps must be taken to bring this to an end or it will bring trouble within our prisons.
We should heed that warning because of the threat of danger not only within our prisons but back on the streets. He went on to say:
Overcrowded prisons are unhealthy places, far more likely to turn out embittered, hardened and contaminated individuals. Overcrowding reduces the opportunities for staff to combat contamination. It makes it very difficult for staff to put in place positive programmes to encourage prisoners to face up to offending.
Note the words "to face up"—not to give easy conditions but to force prisoners to face up to what they have done and the harm that they have caused to society. He then said:
I appeal in the strongest possible terms to those in the rest of the criminal justice system to recognise that if the rise in the prison population continues, the whole criminal justice system could be plunged into chaos.
4.45 pm
He added:
if the population rise continues, the risks we will have to face of further disturbances are fast becoming unacceptable.
The new clause will not solve those problems, but will ensure that Ministers account to Parliament for how they run the Prison Service. It will ensure that Parliament has before it information on the assessment made by Ministers of whether the institutions can cope with numbers and can ensure that prisoners are returned to society less likely to offend and create new victims. That is why it is such an important new clause, and I commend it to the House.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Peter Lloyd): The new clause would require an annual reassessment of living accommodation and regime capacity across the entire prison service. Currently, reassessment is carried out whenever there are changes in living units, such as after refurbishment. That is a practical and flexible arrangement. Furthermore, Prison Service area managers have a continuing responsibility to satisfy themselves that living accommodation in the prisons in their areas meets the requirements of the Prison Act 1952, so nothing would be gained in practice by accepting the first part of the new clause, other than extra bureaucracy.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) seemed to be unaware of the figure for certified normal accommodation. We know it for each prison. We are responsible to Parliament for it under the Prison Act 1952, which is why I have published regularly, in answers to questions from hon. Members, the CNA figure and the population by total service, individual prisons or prisons in particular regions. So information is readily available if ever the hon. Gentleman cares to ask for it. Indeed, he would find it if he looked back in recent editions of Hansard.
The regime capacity is a new concept. It would not, I fear, be an objective measure, but would depend on facilities, type of prison and prisoner, and availability of staff, which can vary heavily with, for example, the demand for court escorts. Despite the recent growth in the


prison population, however, purposeful activity has increased over the past year. Moreover, the new Prison Service operating standards that will be issued to governors shortly will help them to deliver more uniform and higher standards against which they will be individually judged. Each prison governor will have a contract with his area manager on how he will meet those standards during the coming year.

Dr. Godman: Will the Minister confirm that the current arrangements and procedures to which he has just referred will obtain in Scotland? Although our prisoners do not suffer from overcrowding to the same extent as south of the border, overcrowding is a problem.

Mr. Lloyd: I cannot speak with authority on how accommodation available is certificated in Scotland. All that I can do is pass on the hon. Gentleman's inquiry to my colleague at the Scottish Office and ensure that the hon. Gentleman receives a reply. If I endeavour to reply here, I might get it wrong if a difference exists in the methodology in England and Wales and in Scotland.
As I was saying, capacity is a novel concept which it would be hard to measure objectively. Indeed, I am certain that it could not be measured objectively because it varies for a number of reasons, such as resources and availability of staff. It needs to differ from prison to prison, according to the prison's nature, facilities and type of prisoners. However, despite the recent growth in prison population, the regime activities have tended to improve. Last year, the amount of time spent out of cells in purposeful activity increased yet again.
I understand why the clause has been tabled. It is important to ensure that standards of accommodation and regime are kept under close scrutiny. I hope that what I have said persuades the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth that the arrangements and new operating standards meet that proper objective. He seems to have the impression that overcrowding has been increasing over a long period in the prison service. It has not. The number of prisoners has grown sharply over the past year after a decline. We now have about the same number of prisoners as we had four years ago, but, because of the Government's prison-building programme, they are, on the whole, much less overcrowded than they were. In much of the Prison Service, there is no overcrowding.
The hon. Gentleman spoke particularly of numbers in local prisons where, for many years, most of the pressure has been found. That is because local prisons have little room for expansion in town centres near the courts. They must house those sent to prison by the courts while they are on trial or remand. The only quick way of reducing overcrowding in those prisons is to move the prisoners elsewhere in the system, producing exactly the effect that the hon. Gentleman complained of—prisoners housed in prisons far away from their homes. Our prison building programme is designed to ensure that there is a sufficiency of places throughout the country where they are needed.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends will support the Government when we seek to build prisons in places where there is great local resistance—as of course there is at Fazakerley at the moment. In this case, the local population does not want a prison, but prisoners from Merseyside need an extra prison if they are not to be dispersed in large numbers across the rest of the country as happens now. I hope that we can count on the hon.

Gentleman's support in the matter. Judging by what he said, he ought to give his support and I hope that he will put his backing where his sentiments appear to lie.

Mr. Michael: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister does not seem to realise that there is an increase in the use of police cells to hold prisoners. He does not seem to be heeding the warnings, which are growing louder, being given to the Government from many quarters. We do not need more information from the Minister; we need more accountability.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) has ensured both the availability of information about this issue and an analysis of that information which shows the Government's shortcomings in this area. The Home Secretary needs to concentrate his mind on the regime in prison and the outcome of holding people in prison. The Home Secretary needs to listen to those who are involved in the Prison Service, including prison governors and prison officers. Our new clause will ensure that more listening and thinking takes place and, for that reason, we press it to a Division.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 247, Noes 281.

Division No. 198]
[4.51 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Adams, Mrs Irene
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Ainger, Nick
Corbett, Robin


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Corbyn, Jeremy


Allen, Graham
Corston, Ms Jean


Alton, David
Cousins, Jim


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Cox, Tom


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Armstrong, Hilary
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John


Ashton, Joe
Dafis, Cynog


Austin-Walker, John
Dalyell, Tam


Barnes, Harry
Darling, Alistair


Barron, Kevin
Davidson, Ian


Battle, John
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Bayley, Hugh
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Beggs, Roy
Denham, John


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Dewar, Donald


Bell, Stuart
Dixon, Don


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Dobson, Frank


Benton, Joe
Donohoe, Brian H.


Bermingham, Gerald
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Berry, Roger
Eagle, Ms Angela


Betts, Clive
Enright, Derek


Blair, Tony
Etherington, Bill


Blunkett, David
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Faulds, Andrew


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Fisher, Mark


Burden, Richard
Flynn, Paul


Byers, Stephen
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Caborn, Richard
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Callaghan, Jim
Foulkes, George


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Fraser, John


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Fyfe, Maria


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Galbraith, Sam


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Galloway, George


Cann, Jamie
Gapes, Mike


Chisholm, Malcolm
George, Bruce


Clapham, Michael
Gerrard, Neil


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Godsiff, Roger


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Clelland, David
Graham, Thomas


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Coffey, Ann
Griffiths, Win (Blidgend)


Connarty, Michael
Grocott, Bruce






Hain, Peter
Mudie, George


Hall, Mike
Mullin, Chris


Hanson, David
Murphy, Paul


Harman, Ms Harriet
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Harvey, Nick
O'Brein, William (Normanton)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
O'Hara, Edward


Heppell, John
Olner, William


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Orme,Rt Hon Stanley


Hoey, Kate
Parry, Robert


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Patchett, Terry


Home Robertson, John
Pendry, Tom


Hoon, Geoffrey
Pike, Peter L.


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Pope, Greg


Hoyle, Doug
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Purchase, Ken


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Hutton, John
Radice, Giles


Ingram, Adam
Randall, Stuart


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Raynsford, Nick


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Rendel, David


Jamieson, David
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Janner, Greville
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Moôn)
Rogers, Allan


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Rooker, Jeff


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Ross, william (E Londonderry)


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Rowlands, Ted


Jowell, Tessa
Ruddock, Joan


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Salmond, Alex


Keen, Alan
Sedgemore, Brain


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Sheerman, Barry


Khabra, Piara S.
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Kilfoyle, Peter
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)
Short, Clare


Kirkwood, Archy
Skinner, Dennis


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Lewis, Terry
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Livingstone, Ken
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Llwyd, Elfyn
Soley, Clive


Loyden, Eddie
Spearing, Nigel


Lynne, Ms Liz
Spellar, John


McAllion, John
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


McAvoy, Thomas
Steinberg, Gerry


Macdonald, Calum
Stevenson, George


McFall, John
Stott, Roger


McKelvey, William
Straw, Jack


Mackinlay, Andrew
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


McLeish, Henry
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Maclennan, Robert
Trimble, David


McMaster, Gordon
Turner, Dennis


McNamara, Kevin
Tyler, Paul


McWilliam, John
Vaz, Keith


Madden, Max
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Maddock, Mrs Diana
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Mahon, Alice
Wallace, James


Mandelson, Peter
Walley, Joan


Marek, Dr John
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Wareing, Robert N


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Watson, Mike


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Welsh, Andrew


Martlew, Eric
Wicks, Malcolm


Maxton, John
Wigley, Dafydd


Meale, Alan
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Michael, Alun
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Wilson, Brian


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Winnick, David


Milburn, Alan
Wise, Audrey


Miller, Andrew
Worthington, Tony


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Wray, Jimmy


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Wright, Dr Tony


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Morgan, Rhodri



Morley, Elliot
Tellers for the Ayes:


Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)
Mr. Eric Illsley and


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Mr. John Gunnell.


Mowlam, Marjorie






NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Aitken, Jonathan
Evennett, David


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Faber, David


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Fabricant, Michael


Amess, David
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Arbuthnot, James
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Fishburn, Dudley


Ashby, David
Forman, Nigel


Aspinwall, Jack
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Atkins, Robert
Forth, Eric


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Baker, Nicholas Dorset North)
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Baldry, Tony
French, Douglas


Banks, Matthwe (Southport)
Gale, Roger


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Gallie, Phil


Bates, Michael
Gardiner, Sir George


Batiste, Spencer
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Bellingham, Henry
Garnier, Edward


Bendall, Vivian
Gill, Christopher


Beresford, Sir Paul
Gillen, Cheryl


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Body, Sir Richard
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gorst, John


Booth, Hartley
Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)


Boswell, Tim
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Bowden, Andrew
Grylls, Sir Michael


Bowis, John
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Hague, William


Brandreth, Gyles
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Brazier, Julian
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Bright, Graham
Hampson, Dr Keith


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hanley, Jeremy


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Hannam, Sir John


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Hargreaves, Andrew


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Harris, David


Burns, Simon
Haselhurst, Alan


Burt, Alistair
Hawkins, Nick


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Hayes, Jerry


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Heald, Oliver


Carrington, Matthew
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Carttiss, Michael
Hendry, Charles


Cash, William
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Chapman, Sydney
Hicks, Robert


Clappison, James
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Horam, John


Colvin, Michael
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Congdon, David
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Conway, Derek
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Couchman, James
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Cran, James
Hunter, Andrew


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Jack, Michael


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Jenkin, Bernard


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jessel, Toby


Day, Stephen
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Dorrell, Stephen
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Dover, Den
Key, Robert


Duncan, Alan
King, Rt Hon Tom


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Knapman, Roger


Dunn, Bob
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Dykes, Hugh
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Eggar, Tim
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Elletson, Harold
Knox, Sir David


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Lawrence, Sir Ivan






Legg, Barry
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Leigh, Edward
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Sackville, Tom


Lidington, David
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Lightbown, David
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Lord, Michael
Shersby, Michael


Luff, Peter
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Speed, Sir Keith


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


MacKay, Andrew
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Maclean, David
Spink, Dr Robert


McLoughlin, Patrick
Spring, Richard


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Sproat, Iain


Madel, Sir David
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Maitland, Lady Olga
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Major, Rt Hon John
Steen, Anthony


Malone, Gerald
Stephen, Michael


Mans, Keith
Stewart, Allan


Marland, Paul
Streeter, Gary


Marlow, Tony
Sumberg, David


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Sweeney, Walter


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Sykes, John


Mates, Michael
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Merchant, Piers
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Mills, Iain
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Thomason, Roy


Moate, Sir Roger
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Monro, Sir Hector
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Thurnham, Peter


Moss, Malcolm
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Needham, Richard
Tracey, Richard


Nelson, Anthony
Tredinnick, David


Neubert, Sir Michael
Trend, Michael


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Trotter, Neville


Nicholls, Patrick
Twinn, Dr Ian


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Viggers, Peter


Norris, Steve
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Waller, Gary


Ottaway, Richard
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Page, Richard
Waterson, Nigel


Paice, James
Watts, John


Patnick, Irvine
Wells, Bowen


Patten, Rt Hon John
Whitney, Ray


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Whittingdale, John


Pawsey, James
Widdecombe, Ann


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Pickles, Eric
Wilkinson, John


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Willetts, David


Porter, David (Waveney)
Wilshire, David


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Yeo, Tim


Richards, Rod
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Riddick, Graham



Robathan, Andrew
Tellers for the Noes:


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Mr. Timothy Wood and


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 104

CAUTIONING FOR YOUNG OFFENDERS

`(1) Within six months of Royal Assent, the Secretary of State shall publish regulations under which the police may administer a caution to offenders under the age of 18 years, the terms of which may include such arrangements as are considered appropriate for their supervision and support.

(2) The terms of arrangements set out in any caution made under subsection (1) above shall require local arrangements to

(a) be drawn up in consultation with and require the consent of the local authority; and

(b) require the consent of the child or young person and their parent or guardian.

(3) A caution under this clause shall be administered by a police officer of the rank of inspector or above in the presence of a social worker or other appropriate representative of the local authority.

(4) Cautions shall normally be administered under this section only when the child or young person has previously been cautioned under existing arrangements.'.—[Mr. Michael.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Michael: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The initiative contained in the new clause should have been at the heart of the Bill if the Government were really interested in cutting crime. Our proposal would lead to faster intervention when youngsters start to commit crime, instead of what the Government have been doing—waving a big stick and doing far too little, too late. Of course, it is necessary to have punishments available for those who carry on offending and flout the law, but a sensible society intervenes quickly to prevent matters getting out of hand. We need to tackle the causes of bad behaviour as well as the behaviour itself, which is what our proposal would do.
For some time, the Labour party has demanded action to stop inappropriate repeat cautioning. Young people need to know that something will happen when they break the law. But the Home Secretary has simply put a cap on cautioning without putting anything effective in its place. Cautioning usually works—according to Home Office figures, 85 per cent. of those cautioned are not convicted of a further offence within two years, compared with just 19 per cent. of 14-year-olds discharged from custody. We need a fast, firm, fair and effective mode of action to deal with the 13 to 15 per cent. of young offenders who do not respond to a caution.
Most people would agree that when their own children do something wrong, they punish them, correct them or take action immediately—today rather than tomorrow, or even next week. They do not let things drift on for months, which is what happens far too often under our criminal justice system.
We have put forward a three-point plan for dealing with young offenders. First, we propose to speed up the process so that youngsters are given a formal caution by being brought before a senior police officer in days rather than weeks. Secondly, we propose a new "cautioning plus" system, with positive action to divert youngsters away from criminal activity, and to help parents and teachers get a grip on the roots of lawbreaking. Thirdly, we propose to speed up the juvenile justice system so that, where cautioning fails or serious offences are involved, youngsters are brought to court and dealt with in weeks rather than months.
We have pressed the Government on that on a number of occasions. Unfortunately, the Government did not respond positively to that suggestion in Committee.
The new clause would require the Home Secretary to build on best practice and publish regulations that would encourage and develop the process of "cautioning plus". I have seen such schemes in a number of places around the country, including South Glamorgan in my area, and there is evidence of such schemes in Newcastle and East Sussex. Schemes are starting to work well, based on inter-agency co-operation and direct communication between police officers, social workers, schools and youth workers rather than a bureaucratic paper chase.


We need the Government to recognise the need for that system to be made available everywhere. The Government should agree to a mechanism that can be triggered immediately where the police have evidence of reoffending by a youngster who has already been cautioned once only. Details of the offence and the youngster's own circumstances should be discussed between the police and a senior social worker, as well as with the child and parents. If it is a suitable case for "cautioning plus", a proposed programme should be designed for that individual, taking into account home circumstances, school attendance and any other relevant factors.
The requirements of the programme that follows should be tailored to the individual and, in some circumstances, might involve close monitoring of school attendance, and involvement in leisure-time and weekend activities. There should be treatment or help for problems involving drugs, alcohol or solvent misuse—far too often, solvent misuse is overlooked. As long ago as when the Standing Committee was dealing with what became the Criminal Justice Act 1991, I was pressing the Government to accept the need for action. Solvent misuse is often associated with offending. Special attention should be paid to overcoming lack of achievement at school. A variety of other approaches could also be adopted.
Instead of allowing the youngster to be drawn into the criminal justice system and allowing delay, as soon as a second offence occurs it should trigger action. That action should involve intervention to make the youngster and the family face up to the fact that offending behaviour has started and take a grip on the causes and roots of that behaviour.
In those circumstances, provided that the youngster admits the offence and he and his parents undertake to follow the proposed programme, the caution would be administered by a senior police officer in the presence of parents and the social worker who would oversee the programme. It might be appropriate for other persons, such as somebody from the youngster's school, to be involved. Such flexibility would not be difficult to arrange.
It would be made clear to the youngster and to his parents that they have the right to refuse the programme and/or to deny the offence, in which case prosecution in the youth court would follow in the usual way and nothing would be lost. The advantage of formalising such an approach in the way that the new clause seeks is that there would be far quicker intervention in dealing with the root causes of offending behaviour, instead of waiting until it is too late.
The majority of cautions are given to first-time offenders. Home Office figures indicate that 79 per cent. of cautioned juveniles are first offenders. In some cases—this is where the new clause would help—a second caution can be justifiable when combined with additional action to divert the young person from further crime.
I have worked with youngsters in a number of inner-city and council house areas and specifically with young offenders, so I know from experience that it is possible to divert many youngsters from criminal activity. Many would not offend if something was done early enough to deal with the conditions in which they are growing up and the influences that bear on them. Often, it is not enough to say that it is for parents to deal with the situation. We know

the day-to-day pressures on ourselves and our children. I speak as a father of five children, and I know of the pressure that society places on us.
In an inner-city area or on an estate, drugs, glue sniffing or truancy can be the norm rather than the exception. The parents themselves may be inadequate or subject to a variety of pressures. There may be poverty in the family, as happens all too often. In such circumstances, fast and positive intervention is a blessing to society as well as to families. Initiatives could include referring the young person and his family to family support organisations for help and guidance, the encouragement of an apology and, where practicable and desired by the victim, some form of reparation. Help could also be given with accommodation or basic education problems, pre-employment training and alcohol or drug abuse.
Such assistance can make an enormous difference to offending and in helping to avoid the increase in the number of victims that will occur if a youngster's offending behaviour is allowed to blossom in the way that is all too often allowed at present.
The involvement of young people in constructive youth and leisure activities can offer something more attractive than offending behaviour—not as a reward for punishment but as a challenge, to draw youngsters into adopting more positive activities.
The use of befriending by adult volunteers can help to exercise a positive influence on the young person. It is not developed earlier enough or often enough in dealing with offenders.
The new clause does nothing to diminish the alternatives and options available to courts in the punishment of young offenders as they go up the scale. It does nothing to undermine secure accommodation or other forms of institutional treatment, when those are necessary. It will enable those facilities to be targeted more quickly and directly at youngsters who fail to respond to the approach that I propose.
Research shows that 87 per cent. of youngsters respond to a caution by not reoffending. If we could cut from the 13 per cent. who offend a second time and more a further proportion of youngsters, as I believe we could, that would leave fewer young people in society to be punished, which would allow more effective targeting.
Last year, the Home Office said that crime among young people was decreasing, and that evidence was initially put to the Select Committee. It later received evidence confirming Labour's assertions that there is a major problem with offending among young people—particularly in respect of burglary and car crime, which constitute 53 per cent. of offences recorded in this country.
Reducing the number of youngsters caught up in those activities is an endeavour worth pursuing. The new clause presents a cost-effective way of approaching the problem, and I strongly commend it to the House.

Mr. Maclean: There is no doubt that young people who offend can benefit from support of the sort that local authorities, probation and education services and others can offer. The earlier that such support is forthcoming, the better—and it may well be a valuable adjunct to a caution. For that reason, our guidance to the police on the use of


cautioning encourages them to liaise with these agencies as to how they might help young people who are given a caution.
We also asked the police to monitor the effectiveness of existing caution-plus schemes of the sort that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) mentioned, under which offenders who are cautioned co-operate with local agencies. Those schemes sometimes involve an element of compensation to the victim or reparation to the community.
We shall examine with interest the outcome cf that monitoring exercise. It may show that supported cautions are worth while, but I suspect that the voluntary nature of the existing schemes is an important factor in their apparent success. The caution is not conditional on the offender agreeing to participate. Arrangements that are pressed on young offenders as a condition of their receiving a caution, like those for which the new clause provides, may not attract the same level of commitment. They may be less effective as a result.
One objective of our new guidance is to bring multiple cautioning under control. There will be circumstances in which a second caution may be appropriate. They are defined in the guidance as where the second offence is trivial, or where the lapse of time since the first caution was given suggests that the first one had some effect. As a rule, offenders should not expect to be given more than one chance to avoid prosecution. The new clause would undermine that principle by providing that the supported caution should be given only after an offender has previously received a simple caution.
I am opposed to the development of tiered cautioning, whereby offenders receive a series of extra-judicial penalties before being taken to court. For that and the other reasons that I outlined, I am not minded to accept the new clause.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: The Minister gave an extremely disappointing reply to a constructive proposal that merited more detailed response. He simply produced a mechanistic response quite unsuitable for dealing with the problem of young people who do not respond to a first caution. The Minister's idea that the presumption should always be that if one caution has failed, a second will fail and that a different response must come from the criminal justice system is deeply flawed. It corresponds with no evidence from any part of the criminal justice system that such a presumption would lead to a diminution in offending or enable the police to respond as they see fit to particular threats to the public in certain parts of the country.
That is yet another example of the Government seeking to impose from the centre operational guidelines on the police and criminal justice system that are wholly inappropriate. I do not imagine for a moment that the Government considered the consequences for those services, which are bound to try to pick up the pieces, or what pressures would be placed on the custodial system, social work departments, prison officers and others afflicted by the ill-judged, knee-jerk reaction of the Home Office and Home Secretary. But it is too late in the passage of the Bill to expect serious thought to be given to any serious propositions. It is a matter of great regret that this proposal, which has been worked out with some care, should have had such a cursory and scant response.

Mr. Michael: With the leave of the House I wish to speak again. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) for his comments. I wish that the Government were equally constructive. The Minister does not need to wait for evidence. If he looks at the evidence that is available to, and produced by, his own Department, he will have information coming out of his ears which shows the value of such approaches. He does not need to be afraid of putting some pressure on young people and their parents, especially if that pressure is positive and effective. I am rather surprised that he is so lax that he feels that these matters should be tackled only if people feel like tackling them. The new clause would place some pressure on youngsters to get out of offending and avoid getting deeper into the criminal justice system.
For God's sake, let this House act to nip things in the bud and stop young people doing damage to themselves, their victims and communities. In view of the totally unsatisfactory response of the Minister, I wish to press the new clause to a Division.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 247, Noes 283.

Division No. 199]
[5.20 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Adams, Mrs Irene
Corbett, Robin


Ainger, Nick
Corbyn, Jeremy


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Corston, Ms Jean


Allen, Graham
Cousins, Jim


Alton, David
Cox, Tom


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John


Armstrong, Hilary
Dafis, Cynog


Ashton, Joe
Dalyell, Tam


Austin-Walker, John
Darling, Alistair


Barnes, Harry
Davidson, Ian


Barron, Kevin
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Battle, John
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Bayley, Hugh
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Denham, John


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Dewar, Donald


Bell, Stuart
Dixon, Don


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Dobson, Frank


Benton, Joe
Donohoe, Brian H.


Bermingham, Gerald
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Berry, Roger
Eagle, Ms Angela


Betts, Clive
Enright, Derek


Blair, Tony
Etherington, Bill


Blunkett, David
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Bradley, Keith
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Faulds, Andrew


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Fisher, Mark


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Flynn, Paul


Burden, Richard
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Byers, Stephen
Foulkes, George


Caborn, Richard
Fraser, John


Callaghan, Jim
Fyfe, Maria


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Galbraith, Sam


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Galloway, George


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Gapes, Mike


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
George, Bruce


Cann, Jamie
Gerrard, Neil


Chisholm, Malcolm
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Clapham, Michael
Golding, Mrs Llin


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Gordon, Mildred


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Graham, Thomas


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Clelland, David
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Grocott, Bruce


Coffey, Ann
Gunnell, John


Connarty, Michael
Hain, Peter


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hall, Mike






Hanson, David
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Harman, Ms Harriet
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
O'Hara, Edward


Heppell, John
Olner, William


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
O'Neill, Martin


Hinchliffe, David
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Hoey, Kate
Parry, Robert


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Patchett, Terry


Home Robertson, John
Pendry, Tom


Hood, Jimmy
Pike, Peter L.


Hoon, Geoffrey
Pope, Greg


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Hoyle, Doug
Primarolo, Dawn


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Purchase, Ken


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Radice, Giles


Hutton, John
Randall, Stuart


Illsley, Eric
Raynsford, Nick


Ingram, Adam
Reid, Dr John


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Rendel, David


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Jamieson, David
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Rogers, Allan


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Rooker, Jeff


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Rowlands, Ted


Jowell, Tessa
Ruddock, Joan


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Salmond, Alex


Keen, Alan
Sedgemore, Brian


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Sheerman, Barry


Khabra, Piara S.
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Kilfoyle, Peter
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)
Short, Clare


Lewis, Terry
Simpson, Alan


Livingstone, Ken
Skinner, Dennis


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Llwyd, Elfyn
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Loyden, Eddie
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Lynne, Ms Liz
Soley, Clive


McAllion, John
Spearing, Nigel


McAvoy, Thomas
Spellar, John


Macdonald, Calum
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


McFall, John
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


McKelvey, William
Steinberg, Gerry


Mackinlay, Andrew
Stevenson, George


McLeish, Henry
Stott, Roger


Maclennan, Robert
Strang, Dr. Gavin


McNamara, Kevin
Straw, Jack


McWilliam, John
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Madden, Max
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Mahon, Alice
Turner, Dennis


Mandelson, Peter
Tyler, Paul


Marek, Dr John
Vaz, Keith


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Walley, Joan


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Martlew, Eric
Wareing, Robert N


Maxton, John
Watson, Mike


Meale, Alan
Welsh, Andrew


Michael, Alun
Wicks, Malcolm


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Wigley, Dafydd


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Milburn, Alan
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Miller, Andrew
Wilson, Brian


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Winnick, David


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Wise, Audrey


Morgan, Rhodri
Worthington, Tony


Morley, Elliot
Wray, Jimmy


Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)
Wright, Dr Tony


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)



Mowlam, Marjorie
Tellers for the Ayes:


Mudie, George
Mr. Roger Godsiff and


Mullin, Chris
Mr. Gordon McMaster.


Murphy, Paul






NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Aitken, Jonathan
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Evennett, David


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Faber, David


Amess, David
Fabricant, Michael


Arbuthnot, James
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Ashby, David
Fishburn, Dudley


Atkins, Robert
Forman, Nigel


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Forth, Eric


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Baldry, Tony
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
French, Douglas


Bates, Michael
Gale, Roger


Batiste, Spencer
Gallie, Phil


Bellingham, Henry
Gardiner, Sir George


Bendall, Vivian
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Beresford, Sir Paul
Garnier, Edward


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Gill, Christopher


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Gillen, Cheryl


Body, Sir Richard
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Booth, Hartley
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Boswell, Tim
Gorst, John


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bowden, Andrew
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Bowis, John
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Grylls, Sir Michael


Brandreth, Gyles
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Brazier, Julian
Hague, William


Bright, Graham
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Hanley, Jeremy


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Hannam, Sir John


Burns, Simon
Hargreaves, Andrew


Burt, Alistair
Harris, David


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Haselhurst, Alan


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hawkins, Nick


Carrington, Matthew
Hawksley, Warren


Carttiss, Michael
Hayes, Jerry


Cash, William
Heald, Oliver


Chapman, Sydney
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Clappison, James
Hendry, Charles


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hicks, Robert


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Coe, Sebastian
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Colvin, Michael
Horam, John


Congdon, David
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Conway, Derek
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Couchman, James
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Cran, James
Hunter, Andrew


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Jack, Michael


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jenkin, Bernard


Day, Stephen
Jessel, Toby


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Devlin, Tim
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Dorrell, Stephen
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Dover, Den
Key, Robert


Duncan, Alan
Kilfedder, Sir James


Duncan-Smith, Iain
King, Rt Hon Tom


Dunn, Bob
Kirkhope, Timothy


Dykes, Hugh
Knapman, Roger


Eggar, Tim
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Elletson, Harold
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Knox, Sir David


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)






Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Sackville, Tom


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Legg, Barry
Shaw, David (Dover)


Leigh, Edward
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Shersby, Michael


Lidington, David
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lightbown, David
Speed, Sir Keith


Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Lord, Michael
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Luff, Peter
Spink, Dr Robert


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Spring, Richard


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Sproat, Iain


Maclean, David
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Steen, Anthony


Madel, Sir David
Stephen, Michael


Maitland, Lady Olga
Stewart, Allan


Major, Rt Hon John
Streeter, Gary


Malone, Gerald
Sumberg, David


Mans, Keith
Sweeney, Walter


Marland, Paul
Sykes, John


Marlow, Tony
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Mates, Michael
Temple-Morris, Peter


Merchant, Piers
Thomason, Roy


Mills, Iain
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Moate, Sir Roger
Thurnham, Peter


Monro, Sir Hector
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Tracey, Richard


Moss, Malcolm
Tredinnick, David


Needham, Richard
Trend, Michael


Nelson, Anthony
Trotter, Neville


Neubert, Sir Michael
Twinn, Dr Ian


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Nicholls, Patrick
Viggers, Peter


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Walden, George


Norris, Steve
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Waller, Gary


Oppenheim, Phillip
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Ottaway, Richard
Waterson, Nigel


Page, Richard
Watts, John


Paice, James
Wells, Bowen


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Whitney, Ray


Pawsey, James
Whittingdale, John


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Widdecombe, Ann


Pickles, Eric
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Willetts, David


Porter, David (Waveney)
Wilshire, David


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Wolfson, Mark


Richards, Rod
Wood, Timothy


Riddick, Graham
Yeo, Tim


Robathan, Andrew
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn



Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Tellers for the Noes:


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Mr. Andrew MacKay and


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Mr. Irvine Patnick.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 127

RACIALLY-MOTIVATED VIOLENCE (NO. 2)

'.—(1) A person shall be guilty of an offence of—

(a) racially motivated manslaughter,
(b) racially motivated grievous bodily harm,
(c) racially motivated wounding with intent,
(d) racially motivated assault occasioning actual bodily harm or
(e) racially motivated common assault.

if, with racial motivation he commits manslaughter, grievous bodily harm, wounding with intent, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, or common assault respectively.

(2) In this section "racial motivation" shall mean motivation on the grounds of colour, race, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins.

(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years in addition to, and consecutive to, the sentence applicable for conviction of the offences of common assault, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, or assault occasioning grievous bodily harm respectively.'.—[Sir Ivan Lawrence.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:

The House divided: Ayes 254, Noes 283.

Division No. 200]
[5.32 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Dafis, Cynog


Adams, Mrs Irene
Dalyell, Tam


Ainger, Nick
Darling, Alistair


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Davidson, Ian


Allen, Graham
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Alton, David
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Denham, John


Armstrong, Hilary
Dewar, Donald


Ashby, David
Dixon, Don


Ashton, Joe
Dobson, Frank


Austin-Walker, John
Donohoe, Brian H.


Barnes, Harry
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Barron, Kevin
Eagle, Ms Angela


Battle, John
Enright, Derek


Bayley, Hugh
Etherington, Bill


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Bell, Stuart
Faulds, Andrew


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Benton, Joe
Fisher, Mark


Bermingham, Gerald
Flynn, Paul


Berry, Roger
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Betts, Clive
Foulkes, George


Blair, Tony
Fraser, John


Blunkett, David
Fyfe, Maria


Bradley, Keith
Galbraith, Sam


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Galloway, George


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Gapes, Mike


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Garrett, John


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
George, Bruce


Burden, Richard
Gerrard, Neil


Byers, Stephen
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Caborn, Richard
Godsiff, Roger


Callaghan, Jim
Golding, Mrs Llin


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Gordon, Mildred


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Graham, Thomas


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Cann, Jamie
Grocott, Bruce


Chisholm, Malcolm
Gunnell, John


Clapham, Michael
Hain, Peter


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Hall, Mike


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hanson, David


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Harman, Ms Harriet


Clelland, David
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Heppell, John


Coffey, Ann
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Connarty, Michael
Hinchliffe, David


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hoey, Kate


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Corbett, Robin
Home Robertson, John


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hood, Jimmy


Corston, Ms Jean
Hoon, Geoffrey


Cousins, Jim
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cox, Tom
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Hoyle, Doug


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)






Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Parry, Robert


Hutton, John
Patchett, Terry


Illsley, Eric
Pendry, Tom


Ingram, Adam
Pike, Peter L.


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Pope, Greg


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Jamieson, David
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Janner, Greville
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Primarolo, Dawn


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Purchase, Ken


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Radice, Giles


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Randall, Stuart


Jowell, Tessa
Raynsford, Nick


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Reid, Dr John


Keen, Alan
Rendel, David


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Khabra, Piara S.
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Kilfoyle, Peter
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)
Rogers, Allan


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Rooker, Jeff


Lewis, Terry
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Livingstone, Ken
Rowlands, Ted


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Ruddock, Joan


Llwyd, Elfyn
Salmond, Alex


Loyden, Eddie
Sedgemore, Brian


Lynne, Ms Liz
Sheerman, Barry


McAllion, John
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McAvoy, Thomas
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Macdonald, Calum
Short, Clare


McFall, John
Simpson, Alan


McKelvey, William
Skinner, Dennis


Mackinlay, Andrew
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


McLeish, Henry
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Maclennan, Robert
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


McMaster, Gordon
Soley, Clive


McNamara, Kevin
Spearing, Nigel


McWilliam, John
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Madden, Max
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Mahon, Alice
Steinberg, Gerry


Mandelson, Peter
Stevenson, George


Marek, Dr John
Stott, Roger


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Straw, Jack


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Sumberg, David


Martlew, Eric
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Maxton, John
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Meacher, Michael
Tyler, Paul


Meale, Alan
Vaz, Keith


Michael, Alun
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Walley, Joan


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Milburn, Alan
Wareing, Robert N


Miller, Andrew
Watson, Mike


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Welsh, Andrew


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Wicks, Malcolm


Morgan, Rhodri
Wigley, Dafydd


Morley, Elliot
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Wilson, Brian


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Winnick, David


Mowlam, Marjorie
Wise, Audrey


Mudie, George
Worthington, Tony


Mullin, Chris
Wray, Jimmy


Murphy, Paul
Wright, Dr Tony


O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


O'Brien, William (Normanton)



O'Hara, Edward
Tellers for the Ayes:


Olner, William
Mr. John Spellar and


O'Neill, Martin
Mr. Dennis Turner.




NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Atkins, Robert


Aitken, Jonathan
Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)


Amess, David
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)


Arbuthnot, James
Baldry, Tony


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Banks, Matthew (Southport)





Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
French, Douglas


Bates, Michael
Gale, Roger


Batiste, Spencer
Gallie, Phil


Beggs, Roy
Gardiner, Sir George


Bellingham, Henry
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Bendall, Vivian
Garnier, Edward


Beresford, Sir Paul
Gill, Christopher


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Gillan, Cheryl


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Body, Sir Richard
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Booth, Hartley
Gorst, John


Boswell, Tim
Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Bowden, Andrew
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Bowis, John
Grylls, Sir Michael


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Brandreth, Gyles
Hague, William


Brazier, Julian
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Bright, Graham
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hampson, Dr Keith


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Hanley, Jeremy


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Hannam, Sir John


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Hargreaves, Andrew


Burns, Simon
Harris, David


Burt, Alistair
Haselhurst, Alan


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Hawkins, Nick


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hawksley, Warren


Carrington, Matthew
Hayes, Jerry


Carttiss, Michael
Heald, Oliver


Cash, William
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Chapman, Sydney
Hendry, Charles


Clappison, James
Hicks, Robert


Clark, Dr Michael (Rockford)
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Coe, Sebastian
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Colvin, Michael
Horam, John


Congdon, David
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Conway, Derek
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Couchman, James
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Cran, James
Hunter, Andrew


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Jack, Michael


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jenkin, Bernard


Day, Stephen
Jessel, Toby


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Devlin, Tim
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Dorrell, Stephen
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Dover, Den
Key, Robert


Duncan, Alan
Kilfedder, Sir James


Duncan-Smith, Iain
King, Rt Hon Tom


Dunn, Bob
Kirkhope, Timothy


Dykes, Hugh
Knapman, Roger


Eggar, Tim
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Elletson, Harold
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Knox, Sir David


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Evennett, David
Legg, Barry


Faber, David
Leigh, Edward


Fabricant, Michael
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lidington, David


Fishburn, Dudley
Lightbown, David


Forman, Nigel
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Lord, Michael


Forth, Eric
Luff, Peter


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Maclean, David


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
McLoughlin, Patrick






McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Speed, Sir Keith


Madel, Sir David
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Major, Rt Hon John
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Malone, Gerald
Spink, Dr Robert


Mans, Keith
Spring, Richard


Marland, Paul
Sproat, Iain


Marlow, Tony
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Steen, Anthony


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Stephen, Michael


Mates, Michael
Stewart, Allan


Merchant, Piers
Streeter, Gary


Mills, Iain
Sweeney, Walter


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Sykes, John


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Moate, Sir Roger
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Monro, Sir Hector
Temple-Morris, Peter


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Thomason, Roy


Moss, Malcolm
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Needham, Richard
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Nelson, Anthony
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Neubert, Sir Michael
Thurnham, Peter


Nicholls, Patrick
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Tracey, Richard


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Tredinnick, David


Norris, Steve
Trend, Michael


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Trimble, David


Oppenheim, Phillip
Trotter, Neville


Ottaway, Richard
Twinn, Dr Ian


Page, Richard
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Paice, James
Viggers, Peter


Patten, Rt Hon John
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Walden, George


Pawsey, James
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Waller, Gary


Porter, David (Waveney)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Waterson, Nigel


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Watts, John


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Wells, Bowen


Richards, Rod
Whitney, Ray


Riddick, Graham
Whittingdale, John


Robathan, Andrew
Widdecombe, Ann


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Willetts, David


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Wilshire, David


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Ross, William (E Londonderry)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Wolfson, Mark


Sackville, Tom
Wood, Timothy


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Yeo, Tim


Shaw, David (Dover)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)



Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Tellers for the Noes:


Shersby, Michael
Mr. Irvine Patnick and


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Mr. Andrew MacKay.


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 1

SECURE TRAINING ORDERS

Mr. Michael: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 3, line 6, at end add—
`(7A) It shall be the duty of every local authority, acting either individually or in association with other local authorities,

(a) to secure that they are in a position to comply with any secure training order which may be imposed under this section and
(b) to provide, or to make arrangements with such persons as seem to them to be appropriate, for the provision by those persons of residential and non-residential facilities designed


(i) to avoid the need for children and young persons to be placed in secure accommodation by providing for the supervision, support, education, treatment

and training of children and young persons who have been cautioned for or convicted of offences and
(ii) to ensure the successful rehabilitation into the community of children and young persons who have spent a period in secure accommodation.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 262, in clause 7, page 6, line 25, leave out 'may enter into a contract with another person' and insert
'shall enter into a contract with a social services department of a local authority'.
Government amendments Nos. 55 and 364. No. 268, in clause 8, page 7, leave out lines 5 and 6. Government amendments Nos. 365, 188, 366 and 367. No. 261, in clause 11, page 8, leave out from line 32 to line 5 on page 9. No. 267, in clause 13, page 9, line 21, leave out from `centre;' to end of line 23.
No. 266, in clause 13, page 9, line 30, leave out from 'centre;' to end of line 32.
No. 265, in clause 14, page 10, leave out lines 1 and 2. Government amendment No. 368. No. 260, in clause 15, page 10, leave out lines 25 and 26. Government amendments Nos. 369, 370 and 297.

Mr. Michael: Our amendments provide that, instead of the Government's secure training order, under which young people would be sent to one of five privately managed secure training centres dotted around the country, many far from their homes, various other arrangements would be made.
First, the courts would be able to make a supervision order with the requirement that for a specified part of the order the young offender would be held in local authority secure accommodation. Secondly, local authorities would be under a statutory duty to provide secure accommodation to fulfil the requirements of that provision—that is an important part of the amendment.
5.45 pm
Thirdly, local authorities would be under a further statutory duty to provide residential and non-residential facilities designed to deal effectively with young offenders in the community at an earlier stage, to prevent them from reaching the point at which they need to be held in secure accommodation.
It will be clear from the amendment that the Opposition seek to ensure not only secure accommodation and the ability to deal with young offenders in a firm and proper way when they fail to respond, but the continuity of care and control that is essential if we want to do something about juvenile and youth crime.
The Government's secure training order was drawn up to fulfil a conference speech commitment rather than because it would really tackle the problem of youth crime. The Association of Chief Police Officers warned of the dangers of sending youngsters many miles from their homes and breaking the links between offenders and the homes and communities to which they will eventually return—not even under the Government's recommendations will we simply lock youngsters up and throw away the key.
The Government propose that there will be five centres with 40 places. The people eligible for secure training orders will be young offenders who have committed three or more imprisonable offences and have reoffended during,


or been in breach of, a supervision order. In relation to secure training orders, magistrates and youth courts will have the same sentencing power as judges in Crown courts. For a single offence, they will be able to give a 12 to 14-year-old a secure training order of up to two years, which is four times the length of custodial sentence that magistrates can impose on offenders over 15, for whom they are limited to a maximum sentence of six months for a single offence.
Under the Bill, the new institutions could be managed by public, voluntary or private sector organisations, but clearly it is envisaged that in practice they will be built and operated by the private sector—the explanation of expenses to be incurred under the Bill depends on that interpretation. That is a retrograde and damaging step which will increase rather than reduce offending by juveniles, and will fragment the present system for dealing with young offenders.
Experience shows that all forms of institutional care or custody for young offenders have high reconviction rates. That is well known to be true of Prison Service custody. According to a parliamentary answer to Baroness Faithfull from Earl Ferrers, the Minister of State, Home Office, on 22 March, the latest available figures for 15 to 16-year-olds are for those who were discharged from Prison Service establishments in 1987 and then followed up for two years. The figures show that 83 per cent. of boys—2,270 out of 2,749—and 43 per cent. of girls—15 out of 35—were reconvicted within two years of discharge. That covers 2,285 or 82 per cent. of the 2,784 15 to 16-year-olds.
High reconviction rates are not restricted to Prison Service establishments. They are also common to other forms of institution. That is why it is extremely important that any secure places are not merely produced ad lib, and that we do not repeat the mistake of the short sharp shock. Secure places must be provided where they are needed, and must be integrated into a system of care and control at local level.
The Government have still not done much to redeem their reputation on secure places. It is only this year that the Government have come some way towards meeting the promise, given during the Committee stage of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, to provide secure places for the older age group to end the scandal of young people of 15 and 16 being held in adult prison accommodation. That promise was given as a result of a campaign, including pressure from Labour Members, yet, three years later, not one additional secure place has been provided to meet the commitment given by the then Home Secretary and the then Minister of State, the present Secretary of State for Education.
I do not want to delay the House today by going in depth into issues with which we have dealt in Committee. We have made it clear that there is a need for secure places. There are youngsters, even in the 11 to 15 age group, who need to be held securely and examples cited in the press illustrate the need for those places. That is not what is at issue. What is at issue is where and how the places should be provided. Should they simply be exercises in isolation, as the Government have proposed—flying in the face of the advice from the Association of Chief Police Officers, to which I referred a few moments ago—or should they be provided as part of an integrated programme of provision at local level?
We have emphasised successful rehabilitation into the community of children and young persons who have spent

a period in secure accommodation. That is not easy. We have quoted the reconviction rates, which show the likelihood of youngsters reoffending on returning to the community. From my experience of working with youngsters, including young offenders, in local communities, I know that there is often bravado, and encouragement and glorification of a young person who has been away for a time. The prevention of reoffending requires a great deal of hard, integrated work, involving the authorities of the establishment in which the young offender is held and those who will work with him and his family in the community and in the home environment. Creating fresh victims and simply encouraging youngsters to go further up the tariff is a fruitless pursuit and a waste of massive sums.
I plead with the Minister and with the Government to provide the secure places that are needed—there is no difference between us on that—in a way that will enable them to be effective and will enable close work with the young person, his family, his school and his community to ensure that when he returns he is less likely, rather than more likely, to offend. Despite the efforts of probation officers, youth workers and others in the local community, one of the failings of our present system is that re-entry into the local community seems destined to be a self-fulfilling prophecy—that those who have been away in custody will return to reoffend. I do not believe that that is inevitable, but I believe that we do not do the things in our system that are requisite for preventing that from happening.
The way in which the Government intend to set up the secure training units means that those units are likely to be re-visited in a short number of years by further criminal justice legislation which will aim to change them into something more effective. The Government could avoid that by accepting our proposition, which provides a system that would work. It would provide the secure places, the training and the education as part of an integrated system at local level.
Our amendment makes clear the requirements on local authorities. Local authorities should ensure that they can comply with any secure training order that may be imposed under the clause. They should prepare for the successful rehabilitation into the community of those who have spent a period in secure accommodation. That is a balanced approach and an option greatly to be preferred to the Government's proposal. It is, perhaps, the option that the Government might have proposed if they had not rushed so quickly from the Conservative party conference to decide on their drafting of this important clause. I hope that the Minister, even at this late stage, will be persuaded that we are offering a better option and a more effective way in which to approach young offenders.
It is a sad fact that the Bill was introduced with a fanfare of trumpets as something that would demonstrate the Government's commitment to tackling crime, but from all the reports it is clear that it has failed to do that and that it has failed to rescue the Government's reputation. They remain a Government who make noise, but who do not act effectively to deal with the problem of crime and with the problem of offending by young people.
Our amendment seeks to address those problems in a proper and constructive way, in a way that would work and in a way that would integrate the requirement for punishment with the requirement for reform to avoid the creation of future victims. I commend it to the House on those grounds.

Mr. John Gunnell: Let me begin by quoting the director of the Howard League for Penal Reform, who said:
The Home Secretary's plans to send children to jails has been exposed for the risky sham it is. Siting the new jails inside old prisons will mix staff, facilities and ethos. Young frightened children will be locked away, isolated from families, and all in the name of bleak political ambition.
Conservative Members may say that it is an entirely predictable quotation, but I believe that it has elements of truth in it. It is important to analyse the choice before the House—that between the Government's proposals for secure training centres and the Opposition's proposals, as explained by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), which represent a constructive approach to tackling the issue.
To put the matter in context, we must realise that juvenile crime is of enomious importance and concern to us. Home Office statistics suggest that there has been a 37 per cent. decline in the number of known juvenile offenders since 1985. That is partly due to demographic changes: the juvenile population has fallen by 25 per cent. However, the number of known juvenile offenders per 100,000 of the population also fell, from 3,130 in 1980 to 2,616 in 1990—a drop of 16 per cent. Juveniles commit a high proportion of detected offences, although that proportion also appeared to be declining. In 1980, juvenile crime represented 32 per cent. of all crime. In 1991, that figure had dropped to 20 per cent.
I give those figures as background and not to suggest that we should not take juvenile crime extremely seriously or that I disagree in any way with the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarlh that there are children as young as 12 to 14 who need to be in secure accommodation. The contention that more secure accommodation is needed is not in dispute.
My experience in Leeds, where the National Bed Bureau is located, shows that more secure accommodation is needed. However, we believe that integrated provision at local authority level is a constructive way forward and that the Government's proposals owe a lot to the fact that a party conference pledge was made and put into action far too soon, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth said. The Government's proposals are wrong-headed.
It is sad that the House faces legislation that it may well accept as drafted, but which can only do harm and can only lead to an increase in juvenile crime. It can only be a mechanism that will be repealed, whoever is in power, because it will be found to be entirely ineffective and to increase the rate of crime.

Mr. Oliver Heald: The hon. Gentleman will remember that, when we were debating that matter in Committee, one of the criticisms of the Labour proposals was that hardened, persistent young offenders would be put into accommodation with other children who were not in that category. Has he, or his hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), found some way round that problem so that those persistent, hardened criminals will not enter situations where there are other innocent children whom they would corrupt?

6 pm

Mr. Gunnell: I do not find that question at all difficult to address because I am very familiar with the secure unit at Leeds, which houses 27 young people of ages. For the most part, they are older than those in the 12 to 14 bracket, although there are some children there who are younger than 12 years and who have committed especially serious offences. The Minister has been to the same unit and knows that the locking-up arrangements and the placing of children in that unit is such that no child is placed in a position where he could influence other children. Children are divided into groups. Age is one of the factors considered, but there is no reason why the nature of the crime that they have committed should not also be a factor. Therefore, that matter can be taken care of by design.
We should consider the possible criteria for judging and comparing the Government's proposal and the Opposition's alternative. The criteria, which in a sense I have learnt as a result of being appointed by Conservative Members to the Audit Commission for seven years, are the three Es—economy, efficiency and effectiveness. They are good criteria by which to consider what is on offer and to compare the two systems.
Let us begin with effectiveness—how would we judge the effectiveness of the proposed accommodation? In considering accommodation for 12 to 14-year-olds, we must bear in mind that we are dealing with children. They are especially difficult children who, in some cases, have committed dreadful offences or a long series of offences—nevertheless, we are still talking about children. Although the detention and the placing of that person in secure accommodation which removes his freedom is, in itself, punishment, we must recognise that we are dealing with children aged between 12 and 14, so a great portion of their lives is still in front of them. If what we do to them is effective, they are less likely to reoffend when they leave that accommodation than when they enter it. Thus, the major criteria by which we judge the effectiveness of what is on offer are the results.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth says, the results from prison-type accommodation show that it is ineffective. The West Yorkshire probation service told me that, in the past year in West Yorkshire, 85 per cent. of supervision orders were successfully completed without further conviction. However, studies in Nottingham and Newcastle suggested that 70 to 80 per cent. of juveniles who received custodial sentences were re-convicted within two years of being released from custody, compared with 45 to 55 per cent. in the same period after supervision.
Let us consider what has happened in Surrey, a county which is not under the political control of the Labour party. I am commenting on an authority which has been under Conservative control for a long time. The people in Surrey tell me that between 1982 and 1992, the court throughput and the number of supervision orders were halved and the number of custodial sentences, because of the way in which the people in the courts there dealt with what was occurring, were reduced from 16 per cent. of those who went through the courts to 4 per cent. In the case of young people below the age of 17, the number was reduced to 0.3 per cent.
That reduction is in part because of the success of the Surrey youth justice centre, which provided tight supervision for young people. Among other things, they


were made to work and were brought face to face with the victims of their crimes, thereby seeing at first hand the damage that they had caused. A study of young people who were referred to that centre showed that, over the first three years of its operation between 1983 and 1986, 40 to 50 per cent. were not re-convicted. That is obviously a different picture from the 70 to 80 per cent. re-offending figure, which I mentioned earlier, for those given custodial sentences. That shows that custodial sentences, especially in national, Home Office institutions, which is where the studies were carried out, are ineffective. Work, both in local authority secure accommodation and certainly with supervision in the community, has proved to be far more effective in preventing re-offending.
The maintenance of the child's personal and educational development is also important. One of the criticisms that we must level at the plan for five national centres is its inability to deal with the educational and personal development of trainees, and, especially the integration of those trainees back into the community. It is clear, as the Home Office has already said, that it will not be possible to provide a standard of education that offers children the national curriculum in the secure training centres. Those children will immediately become out of step with children who are not in training centres, which is bound to cause them a certain amount of difficulty when they return to school. That is already one big disadvantage of the centres.
The other factor was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth. If there are five centres, all on the eastern side of the country as those that have been mentioned are, great tracts of the country, such as the whole of Wales and the entire south-west region, will be without a centre. Children from those areas will have to travel well over 100 miles and, in some cases, more than 200 miles to be admitted to a centre. Under those circumstances, how will there be any chance of an active reintegration of those children into the community?
Specifications have gone out to the private sector about the regime that will exist in the centres and what after-care—described as supervision—will be provided. The specifications say—I thank the Minister for releasing them to us:
On release from the Centre the trainee will undertake a period of statutory supervision.
It is clearly wise to conduct some supervision to try to provide after-care. The specifications continue:
The duration and format of the supervision and which agency will provide it is unresolved. Contractors are invited to say whether they would wish to provide this service themselves as a continuation of the regime.
The contractors are also asked to suggest whether they will make individual arrangements, perhaps on a sub-contractual basis, with other potential providers. Under those circumstances, it is envisaged that they would go to the probation service, to the social services or to voluntary organisations. Notably, voluntary organisations to date have been unprepared to play any part in that process. Voluntary agencies as a whole see the secure training centres as a political move that does not have any merit in terms of dealing with crime or young people, and they have stayed out of the bidding process.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we have for years tried the methods that he suggested to the

House? Recently, young children were taken to the continent and to Africa and on sailing holidays in Scotland. They have come back and kicked doors down, burgled homes, driven cars away, stolen car radios and so on. That has not worked. The children who will be placed in the secure units proposed by the Government are evil. In such units, they will be educated, taught right from wrong and given some discipline. We have tried everything else with them. We have tried the methods proposed by the hon. Gentleman for too long. As the party of law and order, we are taking action yet again.

Mr. Gunnell: I am sorry but the hon. Gentleman is not right in what he says. He quoted a few isolated examples—I am sure that the Minister could comment on them. The position is that the local authority secure accommodation that we are talking about can be extremely secure. I assure the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) that not one person has got away from the secure unit in Leeds over the past 10 years. The hon. Gentleman is welcome to come with me and have a look around the unit. He will find that it is totally secure. The people who run the unit certainly do not organise jaunts of any sort. The hon. Gentleman cannot extrapolate from the experiences of some local authorities the theory that that is the norm. We are talking about the need to have some secure accommodation—that means, accommodation from which people do not get out.
Two points must be made about that: first, it is what happens to people when they are in such units that matters and, secondly, whatever we plan, at some stage those people will get out because they will be let out. What matters then is what they have experienced inside and the arrangements that are made for them when they come out. It is important for them to be reintegrated into the community. Therefore, the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth—that all local authorities should have a statutory duty so that everyone is dealt with and accommodated near their community—would mean that they can maintain contact with their families to the extent that that is desirable. It would also mean that when they come out of the accommodation, there will be someone who has known them and worked with them inside the accommodation who will be able to assist them with reintegration in the community.
People who come out of such units must be reintegrated into schools. The difficulty is that when people come out of an institution and go to school, they go in with a reputation and the teachers soon know about it. It is hard under any circumstances for those people to be reintegrated into a school on an equal basis and to be treated the same as others. It is certainly much easier to reintegrate people if someone can work with them inside the accommodation and then work with them in the community.
Contractors will be running the institutions; indeed, a major weakness is that it is prescribed that they will get them. Therefore, there will be no continuity of experience in the way that even the studies suggest is desirable. Amendment No. 3 would introduce efficiency. Without it, we cannot have efficient arrangements of the sort described as necessary by the studies.
In terms of economy, we must examine the large capital sums that will be expended in setting up the capital schemes and the five centres, and what will happen when someone tries to fulfil a contract. If a company is to make a profit from running a secure training centre, it can do so


only by being careful about staff costs. There is a direct conflict between the level of care provided, which depends on staff levels, the profit that may be required by the private sector for running the unit and the size of the fee that is charged. That commonly means that one goes for the local authority model.
I urge the House to abandon the Government's scheme. It cannot work; it will only worsen the situation. Above all the other things in the Bill, it will be seen as a political expedient to fulfil some of the 27 points that the Home Secretary outlined at the Conservative party conference. After there has been some experience of the scheme, it will be shown to be a failure. The alternatives have a much greater chance of success. I urge a rethink of the issue not simply on a party-political basis but because we must have the most effective way to deal with juvenile offenders. The Government's scheme is a mechanism that will ensure that 12 to 14-year-olds are given the basis for a continued life of crime.

Mr. Maclean: The Government's amendments in this grouping are largely technical and I shall deal with them formally in due course. I shall simply address Labour's amendments.
Amendment No. 3 would place a duty on local authorities to ensure that they comply with secure training orders made by the courts. There is no power in the Bill for courts to require local authorities to comply with secure training orders. Even amendment No. 262, which would require the Home Secretary to contract with local authorities for the provision of secure training centres, would not be the same as placing a duty on local authorities to comply with secure training orders.
On the substance of the amendment, the Government do not believe that local authorities should have the overall responsibility for juveniles detained under secure training orders for two reasons. The first is that local authority secure accommodation accommodates a wide variety of children and young people, not all of whom have problems connected with offending, as my hon. Friend the Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) pointed out in his intervention. Given the wide range of young people, it would not be reasonable to expect the regime to be focused on tackling offending behaviour in the manner that we envisage for the secure training centres.
Secondly, local authority secure accommodation is mostly in small units of up to eight or 16 places. We envisage that, in contrast, the secure training centres will be larger regional centres taking about 40 youngsters in each. Such a size will allow the development of a good range of education and other activities.
The amendment would also place a duty on local authorities to provide a range of other facilities both to prevent children from needing to be placed in secure accommodation and to rehabilitate those who are. Local authorities are already under a duty, as a result of the Children Act 1989, to take reasonable steps to prevent children from committing crime and from needing to be placed in secure accommodation.
Amendment No. 262 would restrict the Secretary of State to making contracts for the provision and running of secure training centres, or parts of those centres, with the social services departments of local authorities. The remaining amendments in the group would remove the

provision in the Bill for the Secretary of State to provide directly managed centres but to contract out certain functions in them.
The Government are committed to a process of competitive tendering for the centres, which will help to achieve value for money by driving down costs and
encouraging the development of imaginative and innovative ideas both in design and operation.

Mr. Gunnell: rose—

Mr. Maclean: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall conclude my remarks. At the root of the debate is a difference in philosophy about who should run the centres. We see a valuable role for local authorities in their areas. We see a valuable role for private enterprise in the centres. For those reasons, I ask the House not to support Labour's amendments.

Mr. Michael: Regrettably, it is clear that the Minister is determined to go down the path that will do little to solve the problem of offending by young people and to save future victims from being created. It is essential that we make that distinction clear and, therefore, we shall press amendment No. 3 to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 247, Noes 292.

Division No. 201]
[6.19 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Ainger, Nick
Clelland, David


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Coffey, Ann


Allen, Graham
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Alton, David
Corbett, Robin


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Corbyn, Jeremy


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Corston, Ms Jean


Armstrong, Hilary
Cousins, Jim


Ashton, Joe
Cox, Tom


Austin-Walker, John
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Barnes, Harry
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John


Barron, Kevin
Dafis, Cynog


Battle, John
Dalyell, Tam


Bayley, Hugh
Darling, Alistair


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Davidson, Ian


Beith, Rt Hon A. J
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Bell, Stuart
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Denham, John


Bennett, Andrew F.
Dewar, Donald


Benton, Joe
Dixon, Don


Bermingham, Gerald
Dobson, Frank


Berry, Dr. Roger
Donohoe, Brian H.


Betts, Clive
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Blair, Tony
Eagle, Ms Angela


Blunkett, David
Enright, Derek


Boateng, Paul
Etherington, Bill


Bradley, Keith
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Faulds, Andrew


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Fisher, Mark


Burden, Richard
Flynn, Paul


Byers, Stephen
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Caborn, Richard
Foster, Don (Bath)


Callaghan, Jim
Foulkes, George


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Fraser, John


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Fyfe, Maria


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Galbraith, Sam


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Gapes, Mike


Cann, Jamie
Garrett, John


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
George, Bruce


Chisholm, Malcolm
Gerrard, Neil


Clapham, Michael
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Godsiff, Roger


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Gordon, Mildred






Graham, Thomas
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Mowlam, Marjorie


Grocott, Bruce
Mudie, George


Gunnell, John
Mullin, Chris


Hain, Peter
Murphy, Paul


Hall, Mike
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Hanson, David
O'Hara, Edward


Harman, Ms Harriet
Olner, William


Harvey, Nick
O'Neill, Martin


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Heppell, John
Parry, Robert


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Patchett, Terry


Hinchliffe, David
Pendry, Tom


Hoey, Kate
Pike, Peter L.


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Pope, Greg


Home Robertson, John
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hood, Jimmy
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Hoon, Geoffrey
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Primarolo, Dawn


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Purchase, Ken


Hoyle, Doug
Radice, Giles


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Randall, Stuart


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Raynsford, Nick


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Reid, Dr John


Hutton, John
Rendel, David


Ingram, Adam
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Jamieson, David
Rogers, Allan


Janner, Greville
Rooker, Jeff


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Rowlands, Ted


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Ruddock, Joan


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Salmond, Alex


Jowell, Tessa
Sedgemore, Brian


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Sheerman, Barry


Keen, Alan
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Khabra, Piara S.
Short, Clare


Kilfoyle, Peter
Simpson, Alan


Kirkwood, Archy
Skinner, Dennis


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Lewis, Terry
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Livingstone, Ken
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Soley, Clive


Llwyd, Elfyn
Spearing, Nigel


Loyden, Eddie
Spellar, John


Lynne, Ms Liz
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


McAllion, John
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


McAvoy, Thomas
Steinberg, Gerry


Macdonald, Calum
Stevenson, George


McFall, John
Stott, Roger


McKelvey, William
Strang, Dr. Gavin


McLeish, Henry
Straw, Jack


Maclennan, Robert
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


McMaster, Gordon
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


McNamara, Kevin
Turner, Dennis


McWilliam, John
Tyler, Paul


Madden, Max
Vaz, Keith


Maddock, Mrs Diana
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Mahon, Alice
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Mandelson, Peter
Wareing, Robert N


Marek, Dr John
Watson, Mike


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Welsh, Andrew


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Wicks, Malcolm


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Wigley, Dafydd


Martlew, Eric
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Meacher, Michael
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Meale, Alan
Wilson, Brian


Michael, Alun
Winnick, David


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Wise, Audrey


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Worthington, Tony


Milburn, Alan
Wray, Jimmy


Miller, Andrew
Wright, Dr Tony


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Moonie, Dr Lewis



Morgan, Rhodri
Tellers for the Ayes:


Morley, Elliot
Mr. Eric Illsley and


Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)
Mr. Jon Owen Jones.





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Aitken, Jonathan
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Amess, David
Evennett, David


Arbuthnot, James
Faber, David


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Fabricant, Michael


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Ashby, David
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Aspinwall, Jack
Fishburn, Dudley


Atkins, Robert
Forman, Nigel


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Forth, Eric


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Baldry, Tony
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Bates, Michael
French, Douglas


Batiste, Spencer
Gale, Roger


Beggs, Roy
Gallie, Phil


Bellingham, Henry
Gardiner, Sir George


Bendall, Vivian
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Beresford, Sir Paul
Garnier, Edward


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Gill, Christopher


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Gillan, Cheryl


Body, Sir Richard
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Booth, Hartley
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Boswell, Tim
Gorst, John


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bowden, Andrew
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Bowis, John
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Grylls, Sir Michael


Brandreth, Gyles
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Brazier, Julian
Hague, William


Bright, Graham
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Hanley, Jeremy


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Hannam, Sir John


Burns, Simon
Hargreaves, Andrew


Burt, Alistair
Harris, David


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Haselhurst, Alan


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hawkins, Nick


Carrington, Matthew
Hawksley, Warren


Carttiss, Michael
Hayes, Jerry


Cash, William
Heald, Oliver


Churchill, Mr
Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Clappison, James
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hendry, Charles


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Hicks, Robert


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Coe, Sebastian
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Colvin, Michael
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Congdon, David
Horam, John


Conway, Derek
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Couchman, James
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Cran, James
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Hunter, Andrew


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Jack, Michael


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jenkin, Bernard


Day, Stephen
Jessel, Toby


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Devlin, Tim
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Dorrell, Stephen
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Dover, Den
Key, Robert


Duncan, Alan
Kilfedder, Sir James


Duncan-Smith, Iain
King, Rt Hon Tom


Dunn, Bob
Knapman, Roger


Dykes, Hugh
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Eggar, Tim
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Elletson, Harold
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Knox, Sir David






Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Legg, Barry
Sackville, Tom


Leigh, Edward
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lidington, David
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Lightbown, David
Shersby, Michael


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Lord, Michael
Speed, Sir Keith


Luff, Peter
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Spink, Dr Robert


MacKay, Andrew
Spring, Richard


Maclean, David
Sproat, Iain


McLoughlin, Patrick
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Steen, Anthony


Madel, Sir David
Stephen, Michael


Maitland, Lady Olga
Stewart, Allan


Malone, Gerald
Streeter, Gary


Mans, Keith
Sumberg, David


Marland, Paul
Sweeney, Walter


Marlow, Tony
Sykes, John


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Mates, Michael
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Thomason, Roy


Merchant, Piers
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Mills, Iain
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Thurnham, Peter


Moate, Sir Roger
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Tracey, Richard


Monro, Sir Hector
Trend, Michael


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Trimble, David


Moss, Malcolm
Trotter, Neville


Needham, Richard
Twinn, Dr Ian


Nelson, Anthony
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Neubert, Sir Michael
Viggers, Peter


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Nicholls, Patrick
Walden, George


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Norris, Steve
Waller, Gary


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Waterson, Nigel


Ottaway, Richard
Watts, John


Page, Richard
Wells, Bowen


Paice, James
Whitney, Ray


Patnick, Irvine
Whittingdale, John


Patten, Rt Hon John
Widdecombe, Ann


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Pawsey, James
Wilkinson, John


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Willetts, David


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Wilshire, David


Porter, David (Waveney)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Wolfson, Mark


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Wood, Timothy


Richards, Rod
Yeo, Tim


Riddick, Graham
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Robathan, Andrew



Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Tellers for the Noes:


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Mr. Sydney Chapman and


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Clause 3

SUPERVISION UNDER SECURE TRAINING ORDER

Amendments made: No. 53, in page 4, line 27, at end insert—

'(5A) The probation committee or local authority shall be entitled to recover from the Secretary of State the expenses. reasonably incurred by them in discharging their duty under this section.'.

No. 54, in page 4, line 44, at end insert—
'( ) The sums required by the Secretary of State for making payments under subsection (5A) shall be defrayed out of money provided by Parliament.'.— [Mr. Howard.]

Clause 7

RAVES: POWER TO STOP PERSONS FROM PROCEEDING

Amendments made: No. 55, in page 6, line 26, after 'running' insert
'(or the provision and running)'.

No. 364, in page 6, line 26, after 'him' insert
or (if the contract so provides) for the running by sub-contractors of his,'. — [Mr. Howard.]

Clause 8

OFFICERS OF CONTRACTED OUT SECURE TRAINING CENTRES

Amendment made: No. 365, in page 7, line 20, leave out `shall' and insert
and any sub-contractor of his shall each'. — [Mr. Howard.]

Clause 9

POWERS AND DUTIES OF CUSTODY OFFICERS EMPLOYED AT CONTRACTED OUT TRAINING CENTRES.

Amendment made: No. 188, in page 7, line 33, leave out `hat' and insert `headgear'. —[Mr.Howard.]

Clause 10

INTERVENTION BY SECRETARY OF STATE IN MANAGEMENT OF CONTRACTED OUT TRAINING CENTRES.

Amendments made: No. 366, in page 8, line 16, leave out `shall' and insert
`and any sub-contractor of his shall each'.

No. 367, in page 8, line 30, after `contractor,' insert `any sub-contractor of his,'. —[Mr. Howard.]

Clause 15

INTERPRETATION OF SECTIONS 7 TO 14

Amendments made: No. 368, in page 10, line 22, leave out from `contracted' to 'it' in line 23 and insert
`with the Secretary of State for the provision or running (or the provision and running) of.

No. 369, in page 10, line 32, leave out 'and'.

No. 370, in page 10, line 34, at end insert—
and
sub-contractor", in relation to a contracted out secure training centre, means a person who has contracted with the contractor for the running of it or any part of it.'. —[Mr. Howard.]

Clause 20

SECURE REMANDS FOR YOUNG OFFENDERS

Amendment made: No. 56, in page 13, line 17, leave out `young'. — [Mr. Howard.]

Clause 22

NO BAIL FOR DEFENDANTS CHARGED WITH OR CONVICTED OF HOMICIDE OR RAPE

Amendment made: No. 296, in page 14, line 4, at end insert—
`( ) a finding under section 4A(3) of the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964 (cases of unfitness to plead) that a person did the act or made the omission charged against him;'. —[Mr. Howard.]

Clause 29

EFFECT OF ACCUSED'S FAILURE TO MENTION FACTS WHEN QUESTIONED OR CHARGED

Mr. Tony Blair: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 19, line 9, after '(1)', insert—

'The provisions of this section shall not apply to an accused—

(a) in respect of the time prior to his being interviewed in the police station; and
(b) unless he has been informed of his right to legal advice from a qualified solicitor, together with an opportunity to consult that solicitor in private.

(1A)'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will convenient to discuss also the following amendments: No. 250, in page 19, line 9, after 'proceedings', insert 'triable only on indictment'.

No. 251, in page 19, line 9 after 'person', insert '(other than a child)'.

No. 248, in page 19, line 9, after 'offence', insert
'or in any proceedings to commit an accused for trial'.

No. 253, in page 19, leave out lines 11 to 14 and insert—
`(a) at any time when being interviewed at a police station or other premises in accordance with the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, and on being questioned by a constable in relation to an offence, failed to mention any fact relied on in his defence in those proceedings; or'.

No. 316, in page 19, line 19, after 'be' insert
'and provided that such questioning or charging shall have been tape-recorded in accordance with the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.'.

No. 247, in page 19, line 20, after 'applies', insert
'unless the court is of the opinion that it is not in the interests of justice in all the circumstances for that subsection to apply'.

No. 319, in page 19, leave out lines 21 to 34.

No. 31, in page 19, leave out lines 33 to 35.

No. 313, in page 19, line 34, leave out `(c)'.

No. 249, in page 19, line 34, leave out 'court or'.

No. 320, in page 19, line 36, at end insert
'provided that the evidence given in accordance with subsection (1) above is not by itself to be considered sufficient evidence that there is a case to answer.'.

No. 252, in page 19, line 44, at end insert—
(5) Subsection (2) above shall not apply unless the accused was told in ordinary language prior to being questioned by a constable about the offence—

(a) what the effect of this section would be if he fails to mention any such fact as described in subsection (1) above; and
(b) his entitlement to consult a solicitor in private before being interviewed about the offence at the police station; and
(c) the facts available to any constable at the time supporting the accused's involvement in the offence.'.

No. 246, in page 20, line 11, after 'occurred', insert

'(a) by reason of the accused person suffering from mental disorder or mental handicap or was due to his capacity to understand the significance of or respond to questions being impaired for any other reason; or
(b)'.

No. 314, in page 20, line 11, at end insert—
`(7) Subsections (1) and (2) shall not apply unless the accused was told in ordinary language by the constable (when being questioned in the circumstances of subsection (1)(a) above) or by the charging officer (in the circumstances of subsection (1)(b) above) what the effect would be of his failure to mention any fact relied on in his defence in those proceedings.'.

No. 5, in clause 30, page 20, line 12, leave out from beginning to end of line 18 on page 21.

No. 309, in page 20, line 12, after '(1)' insert—
'At the trial of any person for an offence, the court or jury, in determining whether the accused is guilty of that offence, may draw such inferences from the failure of the accused to give evidence as appear proper.

(2) Subsection (1) above shall not apply where

(a) the accused is a child; or
(b) the accused's guilt is not in issue; or
(c) it appears to the court that the physical or mental condition of the accused makes it undesirable for him to give evidence; or
(d) the court, in the exercise of its general discretion considers the application of subsection (1) to be inappropriate.

3) Where the accused is unrepresented by counsel or solicitor the clerk of the court shall inform him in ordinary language what the effect of his failure to give evidence will be provided that

(a) subsection (2) above does not apply, and
(b) where the trial is by jury, the information shall be given in the absence of the jury.'.

No. 307, in page 20, leave out from (1) in line 12 to end of line 46.
Government amendment No. 333.

No. 231, in page 20, line 17, after 'evidence', insert 'or
(c) it is not in the interests of justice in all the circumstances for the above-mentioned subsections to apply.'.

Government amendments Nos. 335 and 336.

No. 226, in page 20, line 21, after `defence,', insert
'and in the absence of the jury,'
No. 228, in page 20, line 22, leave out 'will' and insert 'may'.
No. 227, in page 20, line 23, at end insert—
'(aa) shall tell him the grounds on which the court is satisfied that he has failed to supply an explanation upon an important issue in the case; and'.

No. 230, in page 20, line 29, after 'thereupon', insert
`after hearing representations from or on behalf of the accused'.

No. 229, in page 20, line 29, leave out 'shall' and insert 'may'.

Government amendments Nos. 337 to 339.

No. 308, in page 21, leave out lines 1 to 6.

No. 310, in page 21, line 6, leave out '(7)' and insert '(4)'.

No. 311, in page 21, line 9, leave out '(8)' and insert '(5)'.

No. 232, in page 21, line 9, leave out from 'applies' to the end of line 15 and insert
only to proceedings where the accused person was first questioned about or charged with the offence after the commencement of sections 29, 31 and 32'.

Government amendment No. 340.

No. 312, in page 21, line 16, leave out '(9)' and insert '(6)'.

No. 254, in clause 31, page 21, line 20, after 'person', insert '(other than a child)'.

No. 245, in page 21, line 34, after 'person', insert
'while he is being interviewed at a police station or other premises under the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.'.

No. 244, in page 21, line 37, after 'applies', insert
`unless the court is of the opinion that it is not in the interests of justice in all the circumstances for that subsection to apply.'.

No. 233, in page 22, line 3, after 'above', insert '-(a)'

No. 234, in page 22, line 4 after 'request', insert '; and
(b) his entitlement to consult a solicitor in private before being interviewed about the offence at the police station; and
(c) the facts available to any constable at the time supporting the accused's involvement in the offence.'.

No. 235, in page 22, line 10 after 'occurred', insert—
`(a) by reason of the accused person suffering from mental disorder or mental handicap or was due to his capacity to understand the significance of or respond to questions being impaired for any other reason; or
(b).'.

No. 236, in clause 32, page 22, line 12, after 'person', insert '(other than a child)'.

No. 237, in page 22, line 19 after 'person', insert
while he is being interviewed at a police station or other premises under the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1968.'.

No. 238, in page 22, line 24 after 'applies', insert
unless the court is of the opinion that it is not in the interests of justice in all the circumstances for that subsection to apply.'.

No. 240, in page 22, line 32, after 'above', insert
'-(a)'

No. 239, in page 22, line 33, after 'request', insert 'and
(b) his entitlement to consult a solicitor in private before being interviewed about the offence at the police station; and
(c) the facts available to any constable at the time supporting the accused's involvement in the offence.'.

No. 242, in page 22, line 38, after 'occurred', insert—
`(a) by reason of the accused person suffering from mental disorder or mental handicap or was due to his capacity to understand the significance of or respond to questions being impaired for any other reason; or
(b).'.

Government amendments Nos. 355, 357, 360, 356, 358 and 359.

Mr. Blair: This is an important debate concerning the issue of the right to silence, as it called, which is pan: of the more general principle that a person has the right under British law not to incriminate himself. The prosecution must prove guilt, and there is a presumption of innocence -these are fundamental principles of our law.
It is not, of course, that the jury cannot know of, read about or see the accused's failure to speak or to disclose facts. They can, and juries will do so. The fact that someone has refused to speak is not inadmissible evidence, and juries know that it happens and no doubt bear it in mind.
However, the critical point is that, at present, the judge and the prosecutor cannot comment adversely upon that refusal to speak and invite the jury to draw adverse inferences of guilt. Under the terms of the Bill, they will be able so to comment.
Therefore, even if, technically, the right to silence remains, there will be in effect strong practical pressure on those who are accused to talk. That is a change in those fundamental principles of law. I do not say that fundamental principles of law can never change, but they should yield only if there is a clear benefit, and no detriment which outweighs the value of the principle.
Our conclusion, along with that of the Royal Commission on criminal justice, is that this has not been demonstrated, and that the case for changing the fundamental principles in this way has not been made. We go further, and say that it is more than merely a matter of

high constitutional principle. There is a serious and substantial risk that, in the manner in which the Government have proceeded, we will not merely fail to convict more of the guilty, but that we are in danger of convicting more of the innocent. Those who are in primary danger from the changes will not be, as has been said, the professional and the hardened criminal, but they could well be the weak, the inadequate and the frightened.
It is self-evident to any sensible person that the circumstances in which people may be questioned and asked to disclose facts relevant to their defence, and indeed the justification for requiring them to do so, can vary enormously. There is the time when someone is first questioned by a police officer on the street, through to the police station, to the pre-trial review and finally to the trial at court.
I believe that the single most extraordinary feature of the Government's proposals—what makes them chilling in their degree of political, rather than judicious, motivation—is that they do not seek simply to abolish the right to silence in a limited or controlled way or under certain conditions. Rather, they abolish it completely, in all circumstances and without any apparent additional safeguards whatever. I would further say that they have been thoroughly disingenuous in their attempt to present their proposals as the development of thinking that has gone before.
Briefly—I know that other hon. Members wish to speak—I wish to recap a little of the history of the matter. The Home Secretary has relied heavily on the Criminal Law Revision Committee report of 1972 to justify his position. It is true that the committee did say more than 20 years ago that the right to silence should be restricted. However, even it referred to the matter primarily in terms of what is called the ambush defence; in other words, where the accused suddenly at his trial relies on different facts, catches the prosecution by surprise and gains some unfair advantage. I could well understand the frustration of police officers in those circumstances.
In 1981, a royal commission disagreed even with that restriction on the right to silence, and said that it should remain unrestricted. In July 1987, a previous Home Secretary—now the Foreign Secretary—began to inquire
again into the nature of the right to silence. Again, I would submit that the limits and the evil at which he wished to strike were clear and limited.
The right hon. Gentleman said:
the question in my mind is not whether a suspected or accused person should have a right to remain silent through investigation and trial—he has that right and should continue to have it—but whether, when an accused person ambushes the prosecution by producing at his trial a line of defence which he has not previously mentioned to the police, the court should be precluded from drawing reasonable inferences." —[Official Report, 18 January 1988; Vol. 125, c. 687.]
He later set up a working party, which concluded that the problem was the last-minute ambush defence of the prosecution.
The royal commission, which was set up some time ago and reported in July last year, considered the right to silence and commissioned research on the subject. First, it came to the conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to support the claim that that right was relied on in many cases, or that it caused great problems with the administration of criminal justice.
Secondly, it decided by a majority to retain the right to silence, but dealt with the problem of the ambush defence


by saying that there should be a greater and more mutual disclosure of the prosecution and defence cases. We would certainly agree. It is a sensible recommendation, and it goes a long way towards dealing with the ambush defence problem.
It is true that the minority of royal commission members disagreed with the majority's conclusions. It is important, however, to understand the terms in which the minority decided that the right to silence should be abrogated. I disagree with the conclusion—it is a matter of principle—but it is important to understand their limits set on the amount to which that right should be abrogated.
The report states:
Those who support a modification of the right to silence"— 
that is the minority—
argue that such a step would not lead to a weakening of the protection provided for the innocent and vulnerable. The safeguards of PACE and its codes are already significant and might be extended, for example to allow suspects who are emotionally upset the opportunity to postpone an interview. Suspects may already ask for a second interview if they wish to retract or modify anything said earlier. Access to free legal advice is, in itself, a valuable safeguard … Much more use could be made of audio or video recordings"—
and so forth.
The commission did not recommend that the right to silence be changed, and even the minority desired to do so only with additional safeguards in place. The Home Secretary and the Government tried to say that they were following the minority recommendation of the royal commission. It is important to point out, however, that that minority never contemplated abolition to anything like the extent that the right to silence would be abolished by the Bill.
For example, the minority did not conceive of the right being abolished prior to a suspect reaching a police station, which is a critical point, but envisaged that the right would be abrogated when the suspect was in the police station only if additional safeguards were in place.
Clause 29 of the Bill means that the right to silence is lost, even on questioning in the street. Whenever that issue has been raised, Ministers have said that there will be safeguards, because the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 will apply.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): indicated assent.

Mr. Blair: I see that the Home Secretary nods his head. However, it will not apply before a suspect is interviewed formally at a police station.
The notion that safeguards within PACE will control all the circumstances of the abolition of the right to silence is false. It will not do so. PACE will apply only once the suspect is being interviewed at the police station. Even then, the Bill does not require that people should know roughly the nature of the charges against them, that they should have access to properly qualified legal advice, or even that adherence to the conditions of PACE is a precondition of admissibility. There will be nothing like the safeguards suggested by the minority in the royal commission report.
6.45 pm
The danger of proceeding in such a way has been described again and again by many eminent Queen's counsel who are practising lawyers in the field and who

prosecute as well as defend. Richard Ferguson, the chairman of the Criminal Bar Association, who is a Queen's counsel and was a Member of the Stormont Parliament in the 1970s, said:
The Criminal Bar Association strongly opposes any diminution of the right to silence. It will not help to convict the terrorist or the sophisticated criminal. They will hide behind their solicitors advice or the lack of it to argue reasonable grounds for not answering questions. It will increase the possibility of a wrongful conviction of the weak, the inarticulate and the confused.
Surely, even if we differ on the question of principle—whether the right to silence should be curtailed, and I do not believe that it should—it is wrong to abrogate the right without establishing any safeguards against abuse, given past experience and the judgment of the royal commission. It is not in the interests of the accused, but it is also not in the interests of the people who will conduct the questioning.
If the right to silence is abolished before the accused reaches the police station, one risks a descent into the old nightmares familiar to people who practised law in the 1970s—the allegations of police brutality, verbals and false confessions. There would be trials within trials, which would prolong criminal cases and cause the problems that used to be caused before PACE.

Mr. Harry Greenway: I have listened with care to the hon. Gentleman. He has only mentioned the effect on the confused and the weak of removing the right to silence. What about stronger people, or people who might be expected to be stronger? What effect will it have on them?

Mr. Blair: Mr. Ferguson dealt with that very question. He came to the conclusion—it was also the view taken by the Criminal Bar Association—that the professional criminal will not be at risk. It seems to me that it is common sense that many professional criminals will try to rely on the right to silence. We must ask whether abolishing it will lead them to speak differently. The problem is that it is not the professional criminal who will be the most at risk but, as Mr. Ferguson says, the weak and the inadequate. It is irresponsible and dangerous to legislate without instituting safeguards.
The issue of principle is important here; I shall deal with it briefly, because it was well canvassed in Committee.
It is not as if there is any strong evidence that abolition will transform the criminal justice system—that is not even the Government's case. Indeed, I was astounded when I came across the Minister's words in Committee. He said:
We are not looking"—
in making these changes—
for recognisable changes in rates of conviction."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 1 February 1994; c. 401.]
I should have thought that that would be the one justification for the clause. Abrogation of an otherwise fundamental principle of British law can be justified in circumstances in which one could say that there is a fundamental problem that can be dealt with only in that way.
The views of Mr. Roy Amlot, a very distinguished Queen's counsel and prosecutor, are also pertinent. Many practising lawyers at the Bar were surprised at the strength of his opposition to the Government's case. Recently, he wrote in a letter to The Times:


Despite many years, in the past, of prosecuting as Treasury counsel, I believe that such a move to emasculate the tight to silence is clumsy and unenlightened.
He goes on to suggest why abolition will not have the effect that the Government desire and why it is wrong in principle. In effect, he said—he has repeated that view since—that moves towards the abolition of the right to silence are moves towards the abolition of the presumption of innocence. That is a strong claim, but it is widespread. Such a step is wrong without sufficient cause, and it is in breach of she royal commission's recommendations.
There is something profoundly ironic about the fact that, although the royal commission was set up because of miscarriages of justice and concluded that an organisation must be set up to review such miscarriages and that the right to silence should not be abolished, the Government refuse to set up a miscarriages of justice review body, but have decided to abolish the right to silence. This is not merely wrong in principle; it is doubly wrong that it should be done in this way.
I hope that the Home Secretary will make a reasoned case, and not simply a political speech. Every previous Home Secretary who raised the issue did so with some awareness of its constitutional sensitivity and importance. That was very much the hallmark of the debate when the right to silence was abolished in Northern Ireland.
Whether removal of the right to silence is right or wrong, it is unquestionably deeply important. What concerns people more than practically anything else is that, in this case, the action appears to be being taken not after agonising thought and consideration but following a flick of political rhetoric at a party conference. We must hear a much more reasoned case tonight before taking such a step.
This is not the way to legislate. Indeed, it is not the way to do anything. In my judgment, if we abolish this fundamental constitutional protection without exercising very great care, our action will rebound, and not before long.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: The decision to amend the right to silence in this way—in effect, to abolish it—was not the subject of a piece of political rhetoric that just came out of the air to impress an audience of Conservatives at a party conference. Indeed, this provision has for many years been on the brink of being introduced. For as long as I have been a member of the Bar, a number of very experienced lawyers have been thinking about the right to silence and urging its end.
I have been a practising barrister for 30 years, mostly as a defence lawyer, and I do not share the views of the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair). Nor do I share the views of the majority of members of the Criminal Bar Association or those of the majority of members of the Runciman Royal Commission. There is room for two views. I merely make the point that in this country a respectable body of opinion—I consider myself to be reasonably respectable—has for many years held that it is time to abort the right to silence. Many of the people who hold that opinion are in the judiciary and have therefore spent a lifetime hearing both sides of criminal trials. So the hon. Gentleman should not give the world the impression that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary pulled this proposal out of the air.
I appreciate and apply the "clear benefit and no detriment" guidelines set out by the hon. Member for Sedgefield. The "clear benefit" is the removal of an artificial nonsense. In ordinary life, the way in which a

person responds to an allegation against him may indicate whether he is guilty or innocent, but in a criminal trial the situation is wholly artificial as the right to silence means that the accused person need not respond at all, either when he is being questioned by the police or at his trial. No adverse conclusion may be drawn from his silence. Over the years, jurymen have said to me, "I would have convicted that bounder because I am sure he's guilty, but I didn't do so because the judge said several times, 'You must not convict this man merely on the basis of a conclusion from his silence.'"

Mr. David Ashby: Will my hon. and learned Friend give way?

Sir Ivan Lawrence: When I have developed my argument a little I shall certainly give way to my hon. Friend, who I realise does not share my views.
There is another "clear benefit". Let me refer to something about which we are all massively concerned. Like the Runciman Royal Commission, we have spent a great deal of time considering miscarriages of justice. How did these arise? They were the result of dishonest statements by police officers, going back, as the hon. Gentleman said, to the 1970s—indeed, to the 1960s. I refer to the false confessions, the verbals. Why did police officers verbal and invent false confessions? Because they were frustrated by the right to silence. Just when they felt that they would be able to secure the evidence demonstrating a man's guilt, the rules of evidence and the rules of the court prevented them from asking the questions or getting the answers. [Interruption.] I do not for one moment justify any false activity. [Interruption.] I hope that Opposition Members will not be childish. For 30 years of my life, I have defended people pleading not guilty. I certainly do not defend any kind of police misbehaviour in connection with trials. However, I must make the point that if it is possible to remove the cause of such behaviour, there would be very substantial benefit in doing so.

Mr. Ashby: My hon. and learned Friend has cited the case of a juryman. Would not it be more accurate to say that that person was prepared to convict on the basis of suspicion? Does not the abolition of the right to silence and the comments to be made by the judge amount to the judge's saying, "Members of the jury, you may now give weight to what is a suspicion and nothing else"? My hon. and learned Friend has been in court time after time after time. Has not he said—indeed, I have heard him say—to juries, "You should not convict on suspicion. You should convict only on evidence"? Is not this exactly the point?

Sir Ivan Lawrence: Of course, but we are talking about changing the law so that such a point cannot be made.
Later in my speech, I shall make common ground even with the hon. Member for Sedgefield, although I shall be on the other side of the main line. We have had what is, in effect, an archaic and artificial distortion. We have had it for many years and for a very good reason: that we could not trust police officers always to make truthful statements. The right to silence represented some protection to an accused person in those circumstances. It was not a complete protection. The police could still verbal, but there was an inhibition deriving from the right to silence. The court could throw out an allegation that obviously did not fit all the sense or facts of the situation.


Now that we have tape-recorded interviews, there is no longer the same justification for fearing a police verbal. Where there is tape recording of an interview it is practically impossible to invent a false confession. A copy of the tape is handed to the defence, who can ensure that the police have not engaged in any falsification of it. All experience indicates that since the introduction of tape-recorded interviews trials have progressed on the basis of the other evidence rather than that of any verbal admissions. If the tape contains a clear admission of guilt—a clear confession—defendants plead guilty more often than they used to. That, too, is a "clear benefit". If more of the guilty plead guilty and are convicted we avoid the other miscarriage of justice—the acquittal of the guilty.

Mr. Chris Mullin: Every sensible person would probably agree that the introduction of tape recordings represented a big and long-overdue step forward. However, it is perfectly possible for a person to be intimidated before the tape recorder is switched on. It is perfectly possible for the police to rehearse with suspects what they will say and, perhaps, do a deal with them—to release or agree not to charge girlfriends, for example. It was in such circumstances that the Guildford confessions were obtained. All those confessions would have been obtained had there been tape recordings. I refer to a remarkable case in the west midlands, where one might expect to find the pioneers in this area. Three people were persuaded to admit on tape that they had committed the murder of PC Salt even though they could not possibly have done so. They were in due course released.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: The hon. Gentleman is a well-known and greatly respected campaigner for the rights of those acquitted of serious crimes. The Guildford case took place before the tape-recording of interviews—I believe that tape recordings should be used for terrorist offences, too—and before the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which substantially curtailed the freedom of the police and increased the powers of the courts to do away with any police activity that was suspect for the defendant.
I have no specific knowledge of the case that the hon. Gentleman mentions in Birmingham. However, what he is saying is attributable to police behaviour whether there is a right to silence or not. If police officers want to continue, without being provoked by frustration but for some other reason, to behave as the hon. Gentleman said, it will not matter whether the right to silence exists, so his point is irrelevant to the one that I am making.
7 pm
I have tabled a number of amendments and shall try to deal with them as quickly as possible. As I believe that we no longer need a right to silence because of the tape-recording of interviews, the trial will make more sense to a jury if we do away with the right to silence and rely on tape-recorded interviews. As the introduction of tape-recorded interviews is my reason for supporting the removal of the right to silence, it would be inconsistent and illogical if I were content to see a man lose the right to silence, having been interviewed without having his words recorded—hence amendment No. 316.
If interviews are to be adduced in evidence, they must be tape-recorded. My view is fortified by the growing

evidence that, in more and more cases, the accused is said to have confessed or made a statement that is inconsistent with his innocence before he reaches the police station where the tape recording machinery is. With the development of technology, I see little reason why police cars should not have voice-activated tape recorders, nor why police officers about to arrest somebody who may want to say something should not carry voice-activated tape recorders in their pockets. If somebody is alleged to have said something and it is not tape-recorded—incidentally, I agree with the hon. Member for Sedgefield that with no Police and Criminal Evidence Act protection there is no opportunity for him to call a solicitor before being interviewed—the evidence of any admission or statement that he has made should not be admitted in evidence. Those are my views and they are also the views of the Committee of the Society of Conservative Lawyers, which submitted evidence of that kind to the Runciman Royal Commission. That is my reason for tabling amendment No. 316.
I tabled amendment No. 319 because total nonsense is inherent in clause 29, which no one has yet explained to me as a mistaken view. The clause says, first, that a court may draw such "inferences" from the accused's failure to mention a fact relied on in his defence either at questioning before the charge or at the stage of charging. Secondly, it says that those inferences may be drawn in three situations: first, where the court is considering whether there is a case to answer—a prima facie case; secondly, where there is no committal proceeding because the case is a fraud being transferred by another procedure to the Crown court; and, thirdly, in a child assault case for which there are no committal proceedings because it is being transferred under the new procedure.
The nonsense is that, at the very stage when a submission of "no case to answer" is being made, the court can have no idea whether the defendant will rely on some fact for his defence because he does not have to disclose the details of his defence. So the clause asks the judge or magistrate to do something that he cannot possibly do. That is absurd.
If I am told that that is covered by the words in line 17:
being a fact which in the circumstances existing at the time the accused could reasonably have been expected to mention when so questioned, charged or informed
and that no court could say that the accused could reasonably be expected to mention those matters, I would reply that saying something nonsensical and then saying that what has just been said could not reasonably be expected to happen is double nonsense.
I may be wrong. I may have missed a simple explanation. But if I am right, it is odd that no one has spotted the absurdity before, because the Bill has gone through its Committee stage and has existed for months. I think that I know why that might have happened. Recently, I spent a week at a judicial seminar where judges are taught how to be better judges. Such seminars are part of the improvement procedures and the Judicial Studies Board has been organising good seminars. I took the opportunity to ask several people why they had not spotted the mistake and the High Court judges, circuit judges and the stipendiary magistrates all told me that they had not been sent the Bill to read.
It seems ridiculous that, when dealing with complicated, technical legislation, the Home Office does not automatically invite the class of person most able, by


experience, to help in ensuring that the legislation makes sense to consider the legislation. The one person who told me that the Bill had been read by her department was the Director of Public Prosecutions. If my point is right, although it was read the mistake was not spotted.
My fourth amendment is No. 320. On the face of it, the Government seem to intend that an inference adverse to the accused can be drawn from silence and that that should be capable of being the only evidence against him before committal, for trial. No provision specifically states that silence is not enough to provide a prima facia case, that it can be added to other evidence to make such a case, but it cannot be relied on by itself. I expected to see such a provision in the Bill.
The Government may not intend that silence alone should make a prima facia case. I have heard my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary say as much at Question Time. Unless my memory betrays me, that point was also made strongly by the Criminal Law Revision Committee when it recommended the abolition of the right to silence in 1973. Unless the Bill says that it is excluded, as it would be under amendment No. 320, a court somewhere might say, "We know that there is not much evidence in this case, but the fact that the man remained silent when we think that he should have said something is so suspicious and such a proof of guilt that we shall have this man committed for trial". If I am right, that point should be amended in the Bill.
Clause 30 deals with the accused's right to silence at trial. A judge should not have to put himself in the position of telling a defendant that he should go into the witness box, give evidence and be cross-examined, if an adverse comment is not to be made. That should happen only if there is no other way to get out of the predicament. It would be invidious for that to happen in front of a jury, but, even if it were done with the jury out of court, the accused may draw the conclusion that the judge is part of the prosecution rather than an independent arbiter of justice. The Lord Chief Justice has already spoken out strongly on that matter—more eloquently than I—and I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will take that on board.
The simple alternative is that the judge says nothing. He leaves it to defence counsel and the defence solicitor to explain to the accused the consequences of not giving evidence. That is not a novel approach; it happens all the time. In normal circumstances, no judge needs to tell a defendant the consequences of his going into the witness box and saying that the prosecution witnesses are liars, cheats or frauds and that if he does so he may put his character before the jury. That is always left to the defendant's lawyers—his barristers and solicitors—and it should be the situation in this case. The lawyers should be trusted to tell the accused—if they do not there will be substantial grounds for appeal—that if he does not say anything an adverse comment may be made by the prosecution, the judge or both.
My amendments Nos. 307 and 308 delete the offending passages in the Bill and my amendment No. 309 rewrites this important clause, first, to encompass the good features of the provision and, secondly, to add another constructive suggestion which applies where the accused is not represented by a solicitor or barrister. In such a case, the accused may need to be told that adverse inferences may be drawn from his failure to give evidence. He should be informed of that fact not by the judge, but by the clerk of

the court in the absence of the jury. If the accused person representing himself wants time to consider the position he should be given that time.
The measure is contained in subsection (3) of my new insertion. I hope that my amendment is more elegant than the confused jumble of words which appear in the present Bill, although it may not be. It is certainly less confusing and simpler. The remaining amendments relating to the clause—Nos. 310, 311 and 312—are consequential to that amendment.

Mr. Geoffrey Hoon: In subsection (2)(c) of amendment No. 309, the hon. and learned Gentleman makes the proper point that when it appears to a court that the physical or mental condition of the accused makes it undesirable for him to give evidence the accused should be excused from giving evidence. But would not that formulation apply still more strongly in relation to an interview by police officers when the accused is first seen by those who are investigating the alleged offence? If the hon. and learned Gentleman is to be consistent in his approach to these matters, such words need to be inserted in the Bill at a much earlier stage. Clearly, when people are represented before the court they are less at risk in terms of their physical or mental condition than when they are first interviewed by police officers.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: I am afraid that I did not hear the first part of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. I am sure that what he says is sensible. My right hon. and learned Friend will have heard what he said and will take it on board. I am unable to agree or disagree with the hon. Gentleman's remarks; I was looking for the passage to which he referred.

Mr. Frank Cook: What about justice?

Sir Ivan Lawrence: I am not doing justice; I am merely making suggestions to improve the legislation.
Finally, I have an amendment to clause 31 which deals with the effect of the failure of the accused to account for objects and an amendment to clause 32 which deals with the failure of the accused to account for his presence elsewhere.
I can make my point very quickly. It reverts to the first matter that I addressed in my speech. The right to silence should be removed or modified only when the accused is protected by a tape recording of questions and his answers to them. That is in accordance with the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act which the House passed precisely in order to give that protection. Hence, I have tabled amendment No. 317 to clause 31 and amendment No. 318 to clause 32.
I am sorry if I have not pleased everyone. I have tried to be brief in my remarks. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will take into account the fact that, first, I support the general thrust of the legislation, but, secondly, I think that some improvements can be made to it to safeguard the interests of accused people in the way in which the House would wish to safeguard their interests.

Mr. Maclennan: The hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) spoke for 23 minutes and said that he had been brief. I promise the House that my speech will be substantially shorter because I have had the advantage


of addressing these questions in the Standing Committee, unlike the hon. and learned Member. Although he found fault with the work of the Committee, most issues have been canvassed there extensively.
I did not wholly agree with the hon. and learned Member that there are two views about the merits of the right to silence. I think that there are many more views than that. It is not for us to pick and choose in the House the merits of individual lawyers. When we come to consider whether to take such a fundamental step as is encompassed in the Bill, we should listen to the views of those to whom the Government have entrusted the task of reflecting upon the matter.
This is not a Government who turn lightly or frequently to the device of establishing royal commissions. In fact, throughout the Government's term of office, it is notable that royal commissions have been resorted to rarely. The fact that that should have been the Government's approach in respect of miscarriages of justice shows that there was a very serious problem which could not be tackled effectively by the normal political devices of weighing the arguments that are canvassed in the heat of the moment.
Royal commissions are established in response to a serious public need for advice and we have before us the advice of two royal commissions which point broadly in the same direction. It is right to reflect on the oddity of establishing a royal commission focusing on miscarriages of justice—the reason for its existence was to tackle that problem—but yet not take fully on board or act upon its most serious core recommendation dealing with that question.
The royal commission was quite explicit and I think that it is worth reminding the House of the words that it used in coming to a majority conclusion—and it was not a narrow majority, but a majority of nine to two. Paragraph 22 on page 54 of the Runciman commission report states:
The majority of us, however, believe that the possibility of an increase in convictions of the guilty is outweighed by the risk that the extra pressure on suspects to talk in the police station and the adverse influences invited if they do not may result in more convictions of the innocent.
It recommends retaining the present caution and trial direction unamended. The report continues:
In taking this view, the majority acknowledge the frustration which many police officers feel when confronted with suspects who refuse to offer any explanation whatever of strong prima facie evidence that they have committed an offence. But they doubt whether the possibility of adverse comment at trial would make the difference which the police suppose.
I believe that to be the core recommendation of the royal commission about this matter.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: As a Scottish Member, the hon. Gentleman might know that that is already a law in Scotland under the Criminal Justice Act 1980. I do not know what he is complaining about. Why should it not apply to England?

Mr. Maclennan: I prefer to address the arguments that were deployed by the royal commission which had the opportunity of considering the laws of Scotland as well. I certainly intend to say something about the more germane experience in Northern Ireland, where the law has already been amended.
I have two concerns. First, I am anxious that the change of law adumbrated in the proposal will have an effect on

the attitudes of the police to the significance of their efforts to extract comments from those who are apparently unwilling to give comments or explanations. I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Burton on the importance of the recording of evidence, but, unfortunately, the clause does not deal only with evidence that is capable of being recorded. It also deals with the possibility that the fact that no statement was made before an accused person was taken into custody may be the subject of adverse comment, which is quite unacceptable. Too much weight is being placed by the Government and the Home Secretary on the expectation that to change the law in the way suggested will make a significant difference to conviction rates. There seems to be very little evidence to support that.
In Northern Ireland, where the law has been changed, the evidence is that the vast majority of those charged with more serious offences—those brought under the prevention of terrorism legislation—remain silent. The courts in Northern Ireland have not found that the change in the law has led to a significant change in practice by those who might be regarded as hardened professionals.
My second anxiety was mentioned by the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair). It is likely to be the confused, the weak and the ill-advised who are the victims of the change in law. Those are the people who need the protection of a fundamental constitutional principle that has lasted a long time in this country. I do not find it easy to understand—I am genuinely puzzled—why a Government who proclaim their commitment to the basic
principles of law and justice should hack at the roots of something that is so deeply imbedded in our criminal justice system and has survived for centuries. I am talking about the principle that no one should be under pressure to incriminate himself in court.
The Home Secretary has discussed the subject in the House before. He did so when he was a junior Minister at the Department of Trade and Industry. He began the process of eroding the right to silence in a number of measures, including the Financial Services Act 1986. He has an understandable personal track record of having hacked away at the roots of the tradition of the right to silence.
The Home Secretary said in those debates that he was taking away the fundamental principle of criminal law—the right of someone not to incriminate himself. He said that in the Chamber and admitted that it was a fundamental principle. I should like to hear him advance stronger arguments when he replies to the debate on why he now believes it is right to deal with the matter, not in the narrower context of the Financial Services Act, the Insolvency Act 1986, the Building Societies Act 1986 and the Banking Act 1987, but across the board. The House expects the Home Secretary's explanations for such measures to go further than those that he has given to party conferences.
Some countries believe that the issue is one of high constitutional import—as the hon. Member for Sedgefield said—and is so important that it should be enshrined in a basic constitutional provision. The United States is a prime example. I believe that it is appropriate to enshrine something so fundamental to the protection of the innocent in basic law and I hope that we shall ultimately achieve that position. I recognise that that will require a substantial change—more than a change of Home Secretary within the present Government.


I have had the opportunity of canvassing my views at some length on other occasions. I shall not, therefore, delay the Home Secretary any longer. I greatly look forward to hearing what he has to say on the subject.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: I have some slight experience in the courts, not only in Scotland, but in England and abroad. I have never comprehended the concept of the right to silence, which is not a constitutional right—

Mr. Richard Shepherd: In Scotland.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: It is not a constitutional right anywhere.
In this country, before the end of the last century, at different dates in England and Scotland, the accused—as I would call him, others might call him the defendant—was not allowed to give evidence. He was an exhibit. The right to silence was necessary because he could not give evidence. If it was alleged that he had said something, he could not claim that he had not said it because he could not give evidence and say that he had not said it.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: I ask my question with diffidence, but was not that policy to demonstrate clearly that the burden of proof lay on the prosecution? It is for the prosecution to make, or demonstrate, the case and I may stand by my right to silence in the face of that demonstration. Therefore, the point made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) is misjudged in this context.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Not at all—the person accused was completely deprived of the ability to deny what anyone alleged that he had said because he was not allowed to speak. He was just an object on view.

Mr. Ashby: Will my hon. and learned Friend give way?

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: No, I will not give way. I am not wrong. I know a little about the law. No doubt the hon. Member knows more—

Mr. Ashby: Yes.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: I have defended one or two people and appeared in one or two courts in my day, but obviously the hon. Gentleman has much more knowledge than I do.

Mr. Ashby: Yes, I have.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Let me speak about the right to silence. Every citizen on this globe is required to give evidence. He can be called back from Australia, New York or anywhere else and be forced to give evidence on pain of contempt of court. That is true of everyone except the one citizen whose evidence it is essential to hear—the accused. I always thought it was ludicrous that the one witness whose evidence was important should have the right not to be heard. One of my hon. Friends and Opposition Members said that the weak, being inarticulate and confused, might convict themselves. But hang on a minute—suppose that the witnesses compelled to give evidence were weak, inarticulate and confused. The accused cannot complain, "You can't call that chap—he's weak, inarticulate and confused." The jury must make their own judgments about witnesses, and the accused is the principal witness.
7.30 pm
I propose the restoration of the law in Scotland as it was until 1928. When a person was arrested, they immediately had to record their account publicly, before a magistrate—before they went to the Barlinnie school of schooling and invented a defence. Unfortunately, the present Lord Chancellor said that that must not apply unless the accused consented, so lawyers go before the court and the accused does not need to give an account.
The law of Scotland was so sensible and easy until 1928, because the accused had to go before the magistrate immediately, to give his account of events before he got to any lawyer who could invent an account for him. The right to silence is a fallacious concept, and it is utterly wrong that the principal witness should be given the absurd and historically misunderstood right to silence.
Let us consider verbals. I have known hundreds of cases in which the police alleged that the accused had said something that he denied saying. Nothing that is unrecorded before a magistrate or an independent person should be admitted in evidence. It is only too easy to claim that the accused said, "It's a fair cop—I took it because I needed to buy a house." If one wants the police to be trusted, the courts to be respected and the accused to have fair rights as to what he did or did not say, there is a simple equation: the right to silence goes, in exchange for the necessity that nothing that the accused is alleged to have said can be produced in evidence unless it was recorded by an independent person. That would be a fair solution.
I am sorry that my remarks were all about England, but I thought that I should intervene.

Mr. David Trimble: I will not comment on the situation in Scotland and the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn), but I will refer to the speeches of the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) and the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence), which proceeded on an entirely false basis. In this context, references to the right to silence are wholly misconceived. The Bill does not affect the right to silence properly so called, which is the privilege against self-incrimination and means that a person shall not be compelled to give evidence against himself. Nothing in the Bill in any way changes that. It affects only what some people loosely and inaccurately describe as the right to silence.
The Bill relates to inferences to be drawn from silence and to whether or not the judge can comment on an accused person's failure to say anything. Glanville Williams, probably the most distinguished academic lawyer in England this century, described as wholly unreasonable the rule that a judge cannot comment on an obvious and relevant fact that the jury may take into account. No one ever said that juries must take it into account.
Most of the comments made about the right to silence will give a completely false impression to anyone reading this debate. I was appalled that it was even suggested that the presumption of innocence was in some way affected by the Bill. It does not change that, or the requirement that guilt must be shown beyond reasonable doubt. Those matters are not involved.
I acquit the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), but it annoyed me that no reference was made to the experience in Northern Ireland. The Bill's provisions are word for word the same as those in the Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1988, which


has been in operation for six years. I appreciate that it is sometimes difficult to find out what happens in Northern Ireland, so I gathered together some judgments and placed them in the Library and sent copies to Opposition Members who I felt were in particular need of them. I also referred to the matter in Committee and I shall not repeat the remarks that I made there. If hon. Members want to learn more about the Northern Ireland experience, I refer them to speeches made in Committee and to the judgments placed in the Library. I am disappointed that even at this stage no effort has been made to refer to the Northern Ireland experience.
The hon. and learned Member for Burton is Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee. I appreciate that it is sometimes difficult to know about practices in Northern Ireland, but it was perfectly open to the hon. and learned Gentleman to investigate and to take his Select Committee to Northern Ireland. He could also have called evidence and discovered what has happened in Northern Ireland over the past six years—and why there have not been complaints by practising lawyers or the judiciary in Northern Ireland.
Reference was made to Richard Ferguson, a former Ulster Unionist Member of Parliament for Stormont, but he has been practising in England since before the 1988 order was implemented, so his comments should be taken with a pinch of salt.
Government amendment No. 336 is a response to Lord Chief Justice Taylor. Northern Ireland judges have operated the procedure about which Lord Chief Justice Taylor complains for half a dozen years without any difficulty. However, if that amendment will smooth the passage of the Bill through another place, the change is not terribly significant. It is not of great importance whether the accused is advised by his lawyer, the judge, other persons or other means: it is important that the accused be advised.
I told the Minister of State in Committee that if any of the Bill's provisions were changed, changes should immediately be made also to the 1988 Northern Ireland order. It would be wholly unreasonable for the House to alter the Bill in respect of England and Wales without immediately doing the same for Northern Ireland. I am glad that amendment No 360 will do that, even though it means using the Bill to amend a Northern Ireland Order in Council. I entirely approve, and I thank the Government for following our advice and making sure that changes will apply simultaneously in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Howard: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). I agree with practically every word of his speech. I can assure him that, even were I not following him in the debate, I should certainly have referred to the Northern Ireland experience and to the fact that this legislation is very closely modelled on and, indeed, virtually word for word identical with the provisions of the Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1988, although from the speeches before that of the hon. Gentleman one would have assumed that we were discussing a wholly novel constitutional departure for the United Kingdom. In fact, as the hon. Gentleman clearly and powerfully pointed out, it is nothing of the kind.
This group of amendments relates entirely to clauses 29 to 33 of the Bill, which would allow proper inferences to

be drawn from a person's silence in court or when asked certain questions by the police. As has been pointed out, they are often described as being concerned with the right to silence. Although that is a misleading description, I certainly accept that the matter—though not a constitutional innovation or novelty in the United Kingdom—is of considerable constitutional significance. The description is misleading, because nothing in the Bill would take away any person's right to remain silent if he so chooses either under police questioning or in court. Under our law, that right is not, of course, an absolute right, as the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) pointed out, referring to my track record. There are certain circumstances in which a person may be required to give answers—for example, when questioned by an investigator from the Serious Fraud Office exercising special investigation powers under section 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1987, which built on the powers contained in the Financial Services Act 1986, for which I had some ministerial responsibility.
I confess that I cannot recall how the Liberal Democrats or their predecessors voted when those clauses came before Parliament, but no doubt the official Opposition did not comment on that during the debate because they fully supported the introduction of those powers and the removal of the right in those particular circumstances. Subject to those existing exceptions, the provisions in clauses 29 to 33 of the Bill will not compel any person to answer questions or penalise them for not doing so.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: If my right hon. and learned Friend is right in saying that the right to silence remains after these provisions—I agree that there is an element of a play on words—what kind of right is it when, if one decides to exercise it, one can be adversely criticised?

Mr. Howard: There is nothing inconsistent in the two propositions. What criticism may be made will depend on the circumstances in which someone remains silent. There is a clear difference between the proposition that is already enshrined in part of the law, which was pointed out by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland and which I have just pointed out, which compels someone to answer questions in certain circumstances, and the entirely different situation in which no one is compelled to say anything, but they know that their silence can be the subject of comment depending on the circumstances. That is an absolutely clear distinction and was underlined with considerable force by the hon. Member for Upper Bann.

Mr. Blair: The debate will proceed on a false basis if we have what I think in the end is a fairly semantic argument. No one has suggested that, technically, one is compelled to speak or that there is a legal obligation to speak, but if, when one has failed to answer questions, an adverse inference can be drawn, whatever the technical position the reality is that the right to silence has been interfered with. Quite honestly, the Home Secretary would do his case more justice if he admitted that and justified it rather than playing with words.

Mr. Howard: This does not touch on the fundamental arguments, which I am of course coming to. The hon. Member for Upper Bann was absolutely right in his analysis of the position.

Mr. Blair: Technically.

Mr. Howard: It is not a question of technicality, but of the right approach to this fundamental matter. The hon. Member for Upper Bann was right, but I agree with the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr.Blair) that that does not affect the fact that there are fundamental arguments to be addressed, and of course I will address them.

Mr. Harry Greenway: I am very interested in this and I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for giving way. Will he explain to me the circumstances in which a judge will make comment or in which inferences can be drawn from someone's silence? At what point in the proceedings could that happen? I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to address himself to this point. It is said that criminals will know criminals, that people with a criminal record and people with criminal tendencies will be nailed by the removal of the right to silence, and that that is a substantial justification for it. Will my right hon. and learned Friend address himself to that and to the effect of the removal of the right to silence on the vulnerable, the weak and inadequate, and also intelligent people, who can also be intimidated by the circumstances of being questioned? It is not just the vulnerable who will be affected.

Mr. Howard: To answer the first part of my hon. Friend's question directly, in normal circumstances comment would be made at the end of the trial. It would be open to the prosecution to suggest that an adverse inference could be drawn from the defendant's silence. It would be open to counsel for the defendant to explain away that silence. It would be open to the judge to make such comment as he thinks fit. It would certainly be open to the judge to comment that, in all the particular circumstances of the case, the jury might well decide that it was not appropriate to draw any adverse inference from the exercise of the right to silence by the defendant. And in the end—this is the absolutely crucial point—it will be for the jury to decide what weight to attach to, and to what extent it is appropriate in the particular circumstances of the case to draw any inference from, the silence.

Dr. Robert Spink: Will my right hon. and learned Friend explain what are the circumstances in which a defendant could use the right to silence without it carrying an adverse inference for the defendant? That would help to explain my right hon and learned Friend's case, with which I agree entirely.

Mr. Howard: There is such an infinite range of circumstances that it is difficult to pick out particular examples, but it might well be the case that, in a particular set of circumstances, if someone was feeling unwell, was confused or not in a position to give a proper account in answer to questions that were put to him, the judge might say to the jury—though it would always be a matter for the jury—"You may well think that, in all the circumstances of this case, having regard to what you have heard, it would not be right to draw any adverse inference from the silence of the accused in this case." But in the end, having heard all the evidence, it is a matter that the jury would be entitled to take into account.
The matter derives its origins quite apart from the criminal law review committee, to which the hon. Member for Sedgefield referred: although clauses 29 and 30 of the Bill are, for all practical purposes, exact replicas of the

draft clauses in the Criminal Law Revision Committee's report, the provision finds its origin in the Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1988. That order was made in October 1988 and came into effect in December 1988 and, as we heard from the hon. Member for Upper Bann, it has operated to good effect and without difficulty since then. When the order was introduced, my predecessor—my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd), now the Foreign Secretary—gave an undertaking that the legislation on this subject would be introduced for England and Wales at the earliest opportunity after the report of the working group that he had set up had been received.
There is therefore a respectable history to the matter. It is not something that has been plucked out of the ether by me or by the present Government. It is true that a minority and not a majority of the royal commission recommended that changes of this kind should be made, but it is also true—no one has yet commented on this significant fact—that a majority of the judges who gave evidence to the royal commission were in favour of such a change.
We propose simply to remove the artificial and outdated restrictions which prevent a court or jury from hearing about a person's silence and taking it into account in reaching a verdict. Indeed, our proposals have accurately been described by my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) as a freedom of information Act for juries.

Mr. Ashby: I have been following the debate with great interest and a number of very important points have been made. However, I do not entirely agree with my right hon. and learned Friend. What concerns me and a number of others is that when someone is arrested there is always a great deal of confusion and the person may be wholly innocent and completely astounded. Indeed, I can think of an incident that happened only a couple of weeks ago that would give rise to such a situation. If we are going to start playing around with the burden of proof—I agree that we are talking not about the right to silence but about the burden of proof—should it not be within the confines of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and relate only to tape-recorded interviews?

Mr. Howard: I shall deal with that point in a moment when I speak in detail to the amendments, but, in answer to that question, I can say that, first, the proposals do not amount to a change in the burden of proof; it will still be for the prosecution to establish the burden of proof in every case. Secondly—this is the critical point—there may well be circumstances in which someone is confused, as my hon. Friend described, in a way that should properly be taken into account in assessing what inference should be drawn from his silence and what weight should be attached to it. That is precisely what will happen; it is precisely how the silence will be taken into account and it is precisely the type of factor that the jury will be left to decide.
There has been some questioning of the extent to which the change will make a difference. The findings of the Royal Commission on criminal justice contained the following paragraph:
In the view of many police officers, a significant number of suspects, by refusing to answer questions, seriously impede the efforts of investigators to fulfil their function of establishing the facts of the case. The initial aim of these suspects may be to avoid being charged but, if this is not successful, they may subsequently fabricate a defence which will not be revealed until their trial, at which point it may be impracticable to investigate and detect the


fabrication. Alternatively, they may remain silent, offer no explanations, and yet try to discredit the prosecution evidence or intimidate witnesses or victims in order to deter them from giving evidence. By such means, some criminals are, in the view of the police and many others, taking advantage of a feature of the criminal justice system left over from a past era when there were far fewer safeguards to protect the defendant than there are today".
The royal commission also found that it was part of the experience of police officers that
although most people who are arrested do answer questions inviting an explanation of evidence against them, a considerable number of experienced or professional criminals do not".
A recent survey by the Association of Chief Police Officers found that offenders with five or more previous convictions were more than three times as likely to remain silent in police stations than those with no previous convictions.

Mr. Mullin: Does the Home Secretary agree that the category of people most likely to claim the right to silence at present are police officers charged with conspiring to pervert the course of justice?

Mr. Howard: I would not agree with the hon. Gentleman on that point, but, of course, any changes that we make would apply equally to that category of defendant in which the hon. Gentleman has a particular interest and to any other category of defendant, so it may yet be that, on reflection, we shall have the support of the hon. Gentleman in the Lobby tonight.

Mr. Mullin: Every cloud has a silver lining.

Mr. Howard: A minority of the royal commission concluded that it would be right to change the law so that inferences could be drawn from an offender's silence in relevant circumstances. The Government agree with that minority view. We believe that it is reasonable to expect an accused person to offer an explanation of circumstances that appear to be incriminating and that if he does not do so there is no reason why a court or jury should be prevented from taking account of his silence when considering the strength of the case against him.

Mr. Hoon: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has repeatedly talked about the jury being able to reach a decision in the light of the defendant's failure to give evidence. What has he to say about the direction that a judge should give in such circumstances? At present, if a defendant chooses to exercise what has been described as the right to silence, the judge will indicate to the jury that it is a perfectly proper constitutional position for the defendant to adopt. Under the rules proposed by the Home Secretary, what indication is the judge supposed to give to the jury? Does the Home Secretary accept that, if under the proposals, the judge gives a direction to the effect that the right to silence has been exercised, in most jury trials it will be tantamount to an indication from the judge that he is extremely unhappy with the defendant's case? Will not that lead many juries to conclude that they should convict?

Mr. Howard: I certainly do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's final point and I am surprised that he made it. Although his experience of the courts might be a trifle more recent than mine, I am sure that he will share my experience that juries are at least as likely to reject such indications from judges as they are to accept them.

However, by way of a direct answer to the hon. Gentleman's question, the position is this: as a result of the Government's amendment to which I am about to refer, the jury will have seen explained to the defendant the fact that, if he chooses to remain silent, an adverse inference could be drawn from his silence. The jury will then be told by the judge in his summing up that it is open to them to draw such an inference, but that the nature of that inference and the weight that they attach to it will depend on the circumstances of the case. As with every other circumstance of the case, the judge will be able to express his view to the jury, but he will tell the jury—as he is presently obliged to do in relation to every other circumstance—that, in the end, it will be for the jury to form their own view and for them to decide. Therefore, the matter will be treated in precisely the same way as every other relevant circumstance and every other relevant piece of evidence.
I deal now with the Government amendments to clause 30, which has already been described pretty accurately by the hon. Member for Upper Bann. Government amendments Nos. 333 to 340 and 355 and 356 would make a minor change in the procedure while leaving the basic effect of the clause unchanged. They deal with concerns that have been expressed by the Lord Chief Justice. Contrary to many reports, he has consistently supported the principle of drawing inferences from silence, but has expressed concerns about the procedure that is presently embodied in clause 30.
The amended clause, like the present one, will ensure that the court can draw proper inference from the accused person's silence in court, but, instead of calling on a defendant to give evidence, a judge or magistrate would satisfy himself in the presence of the jury that the defendant was aware of his opportunity to give evidence and the possible consequences of not doing so. Lord Taylor told me that he was content with the changes that the Government amendments would make to clause 30. As the hon. Member for Upper Bann said, amendments 357 to 360 would effect equivalent changes in the corresponding Northern Ireland legislation.
Before I finish, I shall deal briefly with some of the other amendments. With regard to amendments Nos. 249 and 250, it is surely entirely illogical to limit provisions to proceedings triable only on indictment. Rules that are just when a serious offence is being tried cannot be unjust when a lesser one is being tried, or vice versa.
I welcome the support of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) for the main thrust of our proposals, but, with reference to his amendments Nos. 319 and 313, I disagree with the proposal that inferences under clause 29 should not be drawn at the committal or transfer stage. It is important that the court sees the whole prosecution case when deciding whether there is a case to answer. The amendments would allow "ambush" defences at committal without allowing any inferences to be drawn as to their veracity, in view of the fact that the same line of defence could have been advanced at an earlier stage.
8 pm
I believe that the amendments that would impose compulsory safeguards, such as tape-recording or access to legal advice, before any inference could be drawn are unnecessary. The police are required to observe the safeguards laid down in the codes of practice issued under


the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 whenever they interview an arrested person. There is no special need to make the application of clauses 29 to 33 depend on the observance of those safeguards, as proposed in amendments 237, 245 and 253. I believe that it should be for the courts to decide a defendant's guilt or innocence on the weight of the evidence put before them, and to draw such inferences as appear proper, as they would for any evidence obtained by the police.

Mr. Blair: The Opposition amendments and the amendments tabled by the hon. and learned Member for Burton are designed for the same effect—to place safeguards so that in effect such inferences can be drawn only at the police station—but is the Home Secretary not aware that his proposal would go wider than that, and deal with the time before the suspect arrives at the police station, before the Police and Criminal Evidence Act safeguards come into effect

Mr. Howard: I was about to deal with that precise point, with reference to amendments Nos. 252 and 314. I disagree with the proposition that inferences should be restricted to the period after cautioning. Sometimes it can be sensible to draw an inference from what a suspect says or does not say when first encountered by the police in suspicious circumstances. Courts will be able to draw inferences only from a failure to mention a fact that the defendant could reasonably have been expected to mention.
That approach is entirely similar to the idea that a person's comment at that stage should be taken into account. That was another recommendation of the royal commission, which led to its further recommendation, which we accept, that any such admission should be put to the suspect at the beginning of the first tape-recorded interview.
Finally, amendment No. 320, tabled by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton, would provide that an inference drawn from silence under clause 29 could not by itself provide that a person had a case to answer. My hon. and learned Friend said that he had not been given a satisfactory explanation of why the amendment was unnecessary. It is unnecessary because clause 33(3) already provides:
A person shall not be committed for trial, have a case to answer or be convicted of an offence
on the basis of an inference from silence alone.
My final recommendation to the House is that the amendments tabled by my hon. and learned Friend and by the Opposition are not necessary, and should be rejected. I invite the House to accept the amendments in my name and to reject any others that may be put to the vote.

Mr. Blair: We will press the amendments to a vote, first because we do not believe that the Home Secretary has adequately justified the abolition of an important fundamental principle of British law—a constitutional principle upon which people are entitled to rely. Our second reason is that the Government proposal, without any proper safeguards, will go far further than anyone has ever recommended on the abolition of the right of silence.
It may be argued that the phrase "the abolition of the right to silence," is not technically accurate, but if people are to be at risk of an adverse inference being drawn if they do not speak, they will in fact be under pressure to speak, whatever the technical position may be. The question is

whether that is right. To abolish the right to silence with no proper safeguards, which goes further than even the minority report of the royal commission, is not only wrong in principle but foolhardy and the House will regret it. We should therefore reject the proposal tonight.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: I believe that I am the only non-lawyer to speak on this group of amendments. I do so with the greatest diffidence, as hon. Members will understand, but I want to make clear what my perceptions of my country are. English law has always had at its heart the right to silence.
Lawyers may say that I am misappropriating that term, but it is fundamental to my perception that no inference may be taken from silence. I know that an extension has been made into fraud cases, and that that is now under challenge in the European Court. We shall see whether that law will stand that test.
Instinctively, as a Conservative, I would argue that the burden of proof for such a significant change lies with those who wish to initiate that change. I have not heard any arguments which conclusively demonstrate why the change is imperative. Therefore, as a Conservative, I stand by that right, and I say that the case has not been proven. I would go with the three royal commission reports on the matter, which we seem so eager to set aside.
I call out passionately for conservatism in such matters. When I think of my view of my country—that is all that we can express on such occasions—I think of Sir Thomas More's innocence protested by his silence. I see that principle march through our history; I watch how the world is changing fervidly; I see the same principle instituted in the constitution of the United States, drawing on our own experience. Are we so lightly to set it aside for the sake of the exigencies of the present, and our current fear of rising crime?
That rule has stood us well in good times and in bad. In the placidity of the 1950s, no one argued that we should do away with it. In the turbulence of other times, no one insisted that we should do away with it. We should have more confidence in our systems. In my view, the Government have not demonstrated the burden of proof that, in the face of the royal commission reports, we should make such a change.

Question put, That the amendment be made: —

The House divided: Ayes 256, Noes 283.

Division No. 202]
[8.07 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Berry, Roger


Adams, Mrs Irene
Betts, Clive


Ainger, Nick
Blair, Tony


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Boateng, Paul


Allen, Graham
Bradley, Keith


Alton, David
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)


Armstrong, Hilary
Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)


Ashby, David
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Ashton, Joe
Burden, Richard


Austin-Walker, John
Byers, Stephen


Barnes, Harry
Caborn, Richard


Barron, Kevin
Callaghan, Jim


Battle, John
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Bayley, Hugh
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Bell, Stuart
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Bonn, Rt Hon Tony
Cann, Jamie


Bennett, Andrew F.
Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)


Benton, Joe
Chisholm, Malcolm


Bermingham, Gerald
Clapham, Michael






Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Jamieson, David


Clelland, David
Janner, Greville


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Coffey, Ann
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Connarty, Michael
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Corbett, Robin
Jowell, Tessa


Corbyn, Jeremy
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Corston, Ms Jean
Keen, Alan


Cousins, Jim
Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)


Cox, Tom
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Khabra, Piara S.


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Kilfoyle, Peter


Dafis, Cynog
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)


Dalyell, Tam
Kirkwood, Archy


Darling, Alistair
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Davidson, Ian
Lewis, Terry


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Llwyd, Elfyn


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Loyden, Eddie


Denham, John
Lynne, Ms Liz


Dewar, Donald
McAllion, John


Dixon, Don
McAvoy, Thomas


Dobson, Frank
Macdonald, Calum


Donohoe, Brian H.
McFall, John


Dowd, Jim
McKelvey, William


Dunnachie, Jimmy
McLeish, Henry


Eagle, Ms Angela
Maclennan, Robert


Enright, Derek
McMaster, Gordon


Etherington, Bill
McNamara, Kevin


Evans, John (St Helens N)
McWilliam, John


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Maddock, Mrs Diana


Faulds, Andrew
Mahon, Alice


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Mandelson, Peter


Fisher, Mark
Marek, Dr John


Flynn, Paul
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Foster, Don (Bath)
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Foulkes, George
Martlew, Eric


Fraser, John
Maxton, John


Fyfe, Maria
Meacher, Michael


Galbraith, Sam
Meale, Alan


Galloway, George
Michael, Alun


Gapes, Mike
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Garrett, John
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


George, Bruce
Milburn, Alan


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Miller, Andrew


Godsiff, Roger
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Gordon, Mildred
Morgan, Rhodri


Graham, Thomas
Morley, Elliot


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Grocott, Bruce
Mowlam, Marjorie


Gunnell, John
Mudie, George


Hain, Peter
Mullin, Chris


Hall, Mike
Murphy, Paul


Hanson, David
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Harvey, Nick
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
O'Hara, Edward


Heppell, John
Olner, William


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
O'Neill, Martin


Hinchliffe, David
Parry, Robert


Hoey, Kate
Patchett, Terry


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Pendry, Tom


Home Robertson, John
Pickthall, Colin


Hood, Jimmy
Pike, Peter L.


Hoon, Geoffrey
Pope, Greg


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Hoyle, Doug
Primarolo, Dawn


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Purchase, Ken


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Radice, Giles


Hutton, John
Randall, Stuart


Illsley, Eric
Raynsford, Nick


Ingram, Adam
Reid, Dr John





Rendel, David
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Straw, Jack


Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Roche, Mrs. Barbara
Turner, Dennis


Rogers, Allan
Tyler, Paul


Rooker, Jeff
Vaz, Keith


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Rowlands, Ted
Wallace, James


Ruddock, Joan
Walley, Joan


Sedgemore, Brian
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Sheerman, Barry
Wareing, Robert N


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Watson, Mike


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Welsh, Andrew


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Wicks, Malcolm


Short, Clare
Wigley, Dafydd


Simpson, Alan
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Skinner, Dennis
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Wilson, Brian


Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)
Winnick, David


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Wise, Audrey


Soley, Clive
Worthington, Tony


Spearing, Nigel
Wray, Jimmy


Spellar, John
Wright, Dr Tony


Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Steel, Rt Hon Sir David



Steinberg, Gerry
Tellers for the Ayes:


Stevenson, George
Mr. Ray Powell and


Stott, Roger
Mr. Neil Gerrard.




NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Congdon, David


Aitken, Jonathan
Conway, Derek


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Amass, David
Couchman, James


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Cran, James


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Atkins, Robert
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Day, Stephen


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Baldry, Tony
Devlin, Tim


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Dickens, Geoffrey


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bates, Michael
Dover, Den


Batiste, Spencer
Duncan, Alan


Beggs, Roy
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Bellingham, Henry
Dunn, Bob


Bendall, Vivian
Dykes, Hugh


Beresford, Sir Paul
Eggar, Tim


Bitten, Rt Hon John
Elletson, Harold


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Booth, Hartley
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Boswell, Tim
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Bowden, Andrew
Evennett, David


Bowis, John
Faber, David


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Fabricant, Michael


Brandreth, Gyles
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Brazier, Julian
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Bright, Graham
Fishburn, Dudley


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Forman, Nigel


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Forth, Eric


Budgen, Nicholas
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Burns, Simon
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Burt, Alistair
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
French, Douglas


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Gale, Roger


Carrington, Matthew
Gallie, Phil


Carttiss, Michael
Gardiner, Sir George


Cash, William
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Churchill, Mr
Garnier, Edward


Clappison, James
Gill, Christopher


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Gillen, Cheryl


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Coe, Sebastian
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Colvin, Michael
Gorman, Mrs Teresa






Gorst, John
Merchant, Piers


Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)
Mills, Iain


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Moate, Sir Roger


Grylls, Sir Michael
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Monro, Sir Hector


Hague, William
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Moss, Malcolm


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Needham, Richard


Hampson, Dr Keith
Nelson, Anthony


Hanley, Jeremy
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hannam, Sir John
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hargreaves, Andrew
Nicholls, Patrick


Harris, David
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Haselhurst, Alan
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hawkins, Nick
Norris, Steve


Hawksley, Warren
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Hayes, Jerry
Oppenheim, Phillip


Heald, Oliver
Ottaway, Richard


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Page, Richard


Hendry, Charles
Paice, James


Hicks, Robert
Patnick, Irvine


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.
Patten, Rt Hon John


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Pawsey, James


Horam, John
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Pickles, Eric


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Hunter, Andrew
Richards, Rod


Jack, Michael
Riddick, Graham


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Robathan, Andrew


Jenkin, Bernard
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Jessel, Toby
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Key, Robert
Shaw, David (Dover)


Kilfedder, Sir James
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shersby, Michael


Knapman, Roger
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Soames, Nicholas


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Speed, Sir Keith


Knox, Sir David
Spencer, Sir Derek


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Spink, Dr Robert


Legg, Barry
Spring, Richard


Leigh, Edward
Sproat, Iain


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Lidington, David
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Lightbown, David
Steen, Anthony


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Stephen, Michael


Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)
Stewart, Allan


Lord, Michael
Streeter, Gary


Luff, Peter
Sumberg, David


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Sweeney, Walter


MacKay, Andrew
Sykes, John


Maclean, David
Tapsell, Sir Peter


McLoughlin, Patrick
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Madel, Sir David
Thomason, Roy


Maitland, Lady Olga
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Malone, Gerald
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Mans, Keith
Thurnham, Peter


Marland, Paul
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Marlow, Tony
Tracey, Richard


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Tredinnick, David


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Trend, Michael


Mates, Michael
Trimble, David


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Trotter, Neville


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Twinn, Dr Ian





Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Wilkinson, John


Viggers, Peter
Willetts, David


Waldegrave, Rt Hon William
Wilshire, David


Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Walker, Bill (N Tayside)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)


Waller, Gary
Wolfson, Mark


Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Wood, Timothy


Waterson, Nigel
Yeo, Tim


Watts, John
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Wells, Bowen



Whitney, Ray
Tellers for the Noes:


Whittingdale, John
Mr. James Arbuthnot and


Widdecombe, Ann
Mr. Sydney Chapman.


Wiggin, Sir Jerry

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed: No. 316, in page 19, line 19, after 'be' insert
`and provided that such questioning or charging shall have been tape-recorded in accordance with the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.'—[Mr. Michael.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 257, Noes 286.

Division No. 203]
[8.20 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Cousins, Jim


Adams, Mrs Irene
Cox, Tom


Ainger, Nick
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John


Allen, Graham
Dafis, Cynog


Alton, David
Dalyell, Tam


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Darling, Alistair


Armstrong, Hilary
Davidson, Ian


Ashby, David
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Ashton, Joe
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Austin-Walker, John
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Barnes, Harry
Denham, John


Barron, Kevin
Dewar, Donald


Battle, John
Dixon, Don


Bayley, Hugh
Dobson, Frank


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Donohoe, Brian H.


Bell, Stuart
Dowd, Jim


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Bennett, Andrew F.
Eagle, Ms Angela


Benton, Joe
Enright, Derek


Bermingham, Gerald
Etherington, Bill


Berry, Roger
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Betts, Clive
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Blair, Tony
Faulds, Andrew


Boateng, Paul
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Bradley, Keith
Fisher, Mark


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Flynn, Paul


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Foster, Don (Bath)


Burden, Richard
Foulkes, George


Byers, Stephen
Fraser, John


Caborn, Richard
Fyfe, Maria


Callaghan, Jim
Galbraith, Sam


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Galloway, George


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Gapes, Mike


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Garrett, John


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
George, Bruce


Cann, Jamie
Gerrard, Neil


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Chisholm, Malcolm
Godsiff, Roger


Clapham, Michael
Golding, Mrs Llin


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Gordon, Mildred


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Graham, Thomas


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Clelland, David
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Grocott, Bruce


Coffey, Ann
Gunnell, John


Connarty, Michael
Hain, Peter


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hall, Mike


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Hanson, David


Corbett, Robin
Harvey, Nick


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Corston, Ms Jean
Heppell, John






Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Murphy, Paul


Hinchliffe, David
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Hoey, Kate
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
O'Hara, Edward


Home Robertson, John
Olner, William


Hood, Jimmy
O'Neill, Martin


Hoon, Geoffrey
Parry, Robert


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Patchett, Terry


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Pendry, Tom


Hoyle, Doug
Pickthall, Colin


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Pike, Peter L.


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Pope, Greg


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Hutton, John
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Illsley, Eric
Primarolo, Dawn


Ingram, Adam
Purchase, Ken


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Radice, Giles


Jamieson, David
Randall, Stuart


Janner, Greville
Raynsford, Nick


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Reid, Dr John


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Rendel, David


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Jowell, Tessa
Rogers, Allan


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Rooker, Jeff


Keen, Alan
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)
Rowlands, Ted


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Ruddock, Joan


Khabra, Piara S.
Sedgemore, Brian


Kilfoyle, Peter
Sheerman, Barry


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Kirkwood, Archy
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Short, Clare


Lewis, Terry
Simpson, Alan


Livingstone, Ken
Skinner, Dennis


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Llwyd, Elfyn
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Loyden, Eddie
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Lynne, Ms Liz
Soley, Clive


McAllion, John
Spearing, Nigel


McAvoy, Thomas
Speller, John


McCartney, Ian
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Macdonald, Calum
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


McFall, John
Steinberg, Gerry


McKelvey, William
Stevenson, George


McLeish, Henry
Stott, Roger


Maclennan, Robert
Strang, Dr. Gavin


McNamara, Kevin
Straw, Jack


McWilliam, John
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Madden, Max
Turner, Dennis


Maddock, Mrs Diana
Tyler, Paul


Mahon, Alice
Vaz, Keith


Mendelson, Peter
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Marek, Dr John
Wallace, James


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Walley, Joan


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Wareing, Robert N


Martlew, Eric
Watson, Mike


Maxton, John
Welsh, Andrew


Meacher, Michael
Wicks, Malcolm


Meale, Alan
Wigley, Dafydd


Michael, Alun
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Wilson, Brian


Milburn, Alan
Winnick, David


Miller, Andrew
Wise, Audrey


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Worthington, Tony


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Wray, Jimmy


Morgan, Rhodri
Wright, Dr Tony


Morley, Elliot
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)



Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Mowlam, Marjorie
Mr. Ray Powell and


Mudie, George
Mr. Gordon McMaster.


Mullin, Chris






NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Fabricant, Michael


Aitken, Jonathan
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Fishburn, Dudley


Amess, David
Forman, Nigel


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Atkins, Robert
Forth, Eric


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
French, Douglas


Baldry, Tony
Gale, Roger


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Gallie, Phil


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Gardiner, Sir George


Bates, Michael
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Batiste, Spencer
Garnier, Edward


Beggs, Roy
Gill, Christopher


Bellingham, Henry
Gillen, Cheryl


Bendall, Vivian
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Beresford, Sir Paul
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gorst, John


Booth, Hartley
Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)


Boswell, Tim
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Bowden, Andrew
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Bowis, John
Grylls, Sir Michael


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Brandreth, Gyles
Hague, William


Brazier, Julian
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Bright, Graham
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hampson, Dr Keith


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Hanley, Jeremy


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Hannam, Sir John


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Hargreaves, Andrew


Budgen, Nicholas
Harris, David


Burns, Simon
Haselhurst, Alan


Burt, Alistair
Hawkins, Nick


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Hawksley, Warren


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hayes, Jerry


Carrington, Matthew
Heald, Oliver


Carttiss, Michael
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Cash, William
Hendry, Charles


Churchill, Mr
Hicks, Robert


Clappison, James
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Clark, Dr Michael (Rockford)
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Coe, Sebastian
Horam, John


Colvin, Michael
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Congdon, David
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Conway, Derek
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Couchman, James
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Cran, James
Hunter, Andrew


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Jack, Michael


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Jenkin, Bernard


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jessel, Toby


Day, Stephen
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Devlin, Tim
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Dorrell, Stephen
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Key, Robert


Dover, Den
Kilfedder, Sir James


Duncan, Alan
King, Rt Hon Tom


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Kirkhope, Timothy


Dunn, Bob
Knapman, Roger


Dykes, Hugh
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Eggar, Tim
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Elletson, Harold
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Knox, Sir David


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Evennett, David
Legg, Barry


Faber, David
Leigh, Edward






Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Lidington, David
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lightbown, David
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)
Shersby, Michael


Lord, Michael
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Luff, Peter
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Soames, Nicholas


MacKay, Andrew
Speed, Sir Keith


Maclean, David
Spencer, Sir Derek


McLoughlin, Patrick
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Madel, Sir David
Spink, Dr Robert


Maitland, Lady Olga
Spring, Richard


Malone, Gerald
Sproat, Iain


Mans, Keith
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Marland, Paul
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Marlow, Tony
Steen, Anthony


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Stephen, Michael


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Stewart, Allan


Mates, Michael
Streeter, Gary


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Sumberg, David


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Sweeney, Walter


Merchant, Piers
Sykes, John


Mills, Iain
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Moate, Sir Roger
Temple-Morris, Peter


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Thomason, Roy


Monro, Sir Hector
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Moss, Malcolm
Thurnham, Peter


Needham, Richard
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Nelson, Anthony
Tracey, Richard


Neubert, Sir Michael
Tredinnick, David


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Trend, Michael


Nicholls, Patrick
Trimble, David


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Trotter, Neville


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Norris, Steve
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Viggers, Peter


Oppenheim, Phillip
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Ottaway, Richard
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Page, Richard
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Paice, James
Waller, Gary


Patnick, Irvine
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Patten, Rt Hon John
Waterson, Nigel


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Watts, John


Pawsey, James
Wells, Bowen


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Whitney, Ray


Pickles, Eric
Whittingdale, John


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Widdecombe, Ann


Porter, David (Waveney)
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Wilkinson, John


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Willetts, David


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Wilshire, David


Richards, Rod
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Riddick, Graham
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)


Robathan, Andrew
Wolfson, Mark


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Wood, Timothy


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Yeo, Tim


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Ross, William (E Londonderry)



Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Tellers for the Noes:


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Mr. James Arbuthnot and


Sackville, Tom
Mr. Sydney Chapman.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendments made: No. 208, in page 19, leave out lines 21 and 22 and insert—
'(a) a magistrates' court, in deciding whether to grant an application for dismissal made by the accused under section 6 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (application for dismissal of charge in course of proceedings with a view to transfer for trial);'

No. 209, in page 19, line 32, at end insert—
`( ) the court, in determining whether there is a case to answer;'

No. 210, in page 20, line 11, at end insert—

`( ) In relation to any time before the commencement of section 36 of this Act, this section shall have effect as if the reference in subsection (2)(a) to the grant of an application for dismissal was a reference to the committal of the accused for trial.'.—[Mr. Maclean.]

Clause 30

EFFECT OF ACCUSED'S SILENCE AT TRIAL

Amendments made: No. 333, in page 20, line 13, leave out `to (7)' and insert 'and (4)'.

No. 334, in page 20, line 16, leave out 'be called upon to'.

No. 335, in page 20, line 18, leave out from 'if' to end of line 20 and insert
',at the conclusion of the evidence for the prosecution, his legal representative informs the court that the accused will give evidence or, where he is unrepresented, the court ascertains from him that he will give evidence'.

No. 336, in page 20, leave out lines 21 to 37 and insert—
'(2) Where this subsection applies, the court shall, at the conclusion of the evidence for the prosecution, satisfy itself (in the case of proceedings on indictment, in the presence of the jury) that the accused is aware that the stage has been reached at which evidence can be given for the defence and that he can, if he wishes, give evidence and that, if he chooses not to give evidence, or having been sworn, without good cause refuses to answer any question, it will be permissible for the court or jury to draw such inferences as appear proper from his failure to give evidence or his refusal, without good cause, to answer any question.'.

No. 337, in page 20, line 38, at beginning insert 'Where this subsection applies,'.

No. 338, in page 20, line 39, leave out from 'inferences' to end of line 40 and insert
'as appear proper from the failure of the accused to give evidence or his refusal, without good cause, to answer any question.'.

No. 339, in page 20, line 43, leave out 'refusal to be sworn' and insert 'failure to do so'.

No. 340, in page 21, leave out lines 16 to 18.—[Mr. Maclean.]

Clause 31

EFFECT OF ACCUSED'S FAILURE OR REFUSAL TO ACCOUNT FOR OBJECTS, SUBSTANCES OR MARKS

Amendments made: No. 211, in page 21, leave out lines
38 and 39 and insert—
'(a) a magistrates' court, in deciding whether to grant an application for dismissal made by the accused under section 6 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (application for dismissal of charge in course of proceedings with a view to transfer for trial);
( ) the court, in determining whether there is a case to answer; and.'

No. 212, in page 22, line 10, at end insert—
`( ) In relation to any time before the commencement of section 36 of this Act, this section shall have effect as if the reference in subsection (2)(a) to the grant of an application for dismissal was a reference to the committal of the accused for trial.'.—[Mr. Maclean.]

Clause 32

EFFECT OF ACCUSED'S FAILURE OR REFUSAL TO ACCOUNT FOR PRESENCE AT A PARTICULAR PLACE

Amendments made: No. 213, in page 22, leave out lines 25 and 26 and insert—
'(a) a magistrates' court, in deciding whether to grant an application for dismissal made by the accused under


section 6 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (application for dismissal of charge in course of proceedings with a view to transfer for trial);
( ) the court, in determining whether there is a case to answer, and'.

No. 214, in page 22, line 38, at end insert—
'( ) In relation to any time before the commencement of section 36 of this Act, this section shall have effect as if the reference in subsection (2)(a) to the grant of an application for dismissal was a reference to the committal of the accused for trial.'.—[Mr. Maclean.]

Clause 33

INTERPRETATION AND SAVINGS FOR SECTIONS 29, 30, 31 AND 32

Amendment made: No. 215, in page 23, line 4, leave out 'be committed' and insert
'have the proceedings against him transferred to the Crown Court'.—[Mr. Maclean.]

Clause 43

CIRCUIT JUDGES TO ACT AS JUDGES OF CRIMINAL DIVISION OF COURT OF APPEAL

Amendment made: No. 341, in page 31, leave out lines 23 and 24.—[Mr. Maclean.]

Clause 44

EXPENSES IN CRIMINAL APPEALS IN NORTHERN IRELAND COURT OF APPEAL

Mr. Trimble: I beg to move amendment No. 63, in page 32, leave out lines 17 and 18 and insert—
'(3) This section shall apply to any decision or review of the Master (Taxing Office) made after 25th July 1991.'
I apologise to the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson), whom I had to jump over to reach my seat in time.
The amendment is a small point, concerning costs in criminal appeals in Northern Ireland. I am delighted that the Government introduced what is now clause 44, because it emerged some six years ago in Northern Ireland that there was a serious gap in our legislation. There had been a provision for the assessment of costs in criminal appeals and a provision for appeals from that assessment. However, as a result of what was a legislative slip up in 1978, the right of appeal disappeared. That was not realised until 1988, in the Weir and Higgins' application. It became clear in 1988 that the right of appeal had been lost.
The obvious thing to do was remedy the omission. I am glad that the Government have done so by introducing clause 44. When they introduced that clause in Committee, I thought that the matter was uncontroversial. At that time, I was not aware that a judicial review was proceeding through the courts in Northern Ireland to test the right to appeal. That judicial review, which was heard by Mr. Justice Kerr and is currently on appeal, was funded by the Law Society of Northern Ireland because of its desire to test the issue and to try to establish a right of appeal.
In those circumstances, and because the mistake was not discovered until 1988, it is not unreasonable to ask for the legislation conferring the right to appeal to be made

retrospective. That is all my amendment does. I have been told that only four or five cases would be affected. I appreciate that there may be expense involved.
In a sense, it would be better to date the retrospection back to 1988. I took advice from the solicitors involved in the case that is currently proceeding through the Northern Ireland courts and the date that is provided in the amendment relates to that. It is not a major issue; it affects only a handful of cases. However, it is a matter of providing a remedy that was lost as a result of what appears to have been a slip-up in the legislation. Now that we are remedying that slip-up, I see no reason why the amendment should not be made retrospective, so that people should not suffer a loss as a result of what was basically a mistake made in this House.

Mr. Maclean: Amendment No. 63 is intended to give retrospective effect to the provisions in clause 44, which confer new rights of appeal against assessments of criminal legal aid costs by the taxing master in the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal. However, it does so in a highly selective manner, which I understand is designed to meet the concerns of a firm of solicitors aggrieved by the master's assessment of the costs in a particular case.
The Government do not accept that it is either necessary or practical to give retrospective effect to the new appeal rights conferred by clause 44. The present arrangements have been in operation for at least 15 years. It is worth remembering that, under the current system, both branches of the legal profession have the benefit of a full, expert and independent consideration of their entitlement to remuneration out of public funds.
The House will realise that it is both unrealistic and unnecessary to suggest that the masters or the High Court should now be required to reinvestigate and review assessments carried out over many years, and we cannot see any justification for affording special and preferential treatment to the costs assessed in any particular case.
The hon. Gentleman will know that on many occasions in Committee I welcomed his wise words, and was able to say that the Government agreed with him and would put into law his desires and his amendment. Unfortunately, this is one of the rare occasions when I must disappoint the hon. Gentleman, and I hope that he understands.

Mr. Trimble: I do not wish to detain the House. I have made my point, and I do not wish to divide the House on the amendment. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: No. 342, in page 32, leave out lines 17 and 18.—[Mr. Maclean.]

Clause 46

POWERS OF POLICE TO TAKE NON-INTIMATE BODY SAMPLES

Amendment made: No. 37, in page 33, line 30, at end insert—
'(6) After subsection (9) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
(10) Subsection (3B) above shall not apply to persons convicted before the date on which that subsection comes into force.."'.—[Mr. Maclean.]

Clause 48

RETENTION OF SAMPLES IN CERTAIN CASES

Amendments made: No. 38, in page 35, line 21, leave out from beginning to 'but' in line 22 and insert
'taken for the purpose of the same investigation of an offence of which a person from whom one was taken has been convicted'.

No. 39, in page 35, line 26, at end add—
'(3B) Where samples are required to be destroyed under subsections (1), (2) or (3) above, and subsection (3A) above does not apply, information derived from the sample of any person entitled to its destruction under subsections (1), (2) or (3) above shall not be used—

(a) in evidence against the person so entitled; or
(b) for the purposes of any investigation of an offence.'.—[Mr. Maclean.]

Clause 49

SAMPLES:INTIMATE AND NON-INTIMATE ETC.

Amendment made: No. 40, in page 36, leave out lines 3 and 4.—[Mr. Maclean.]

Clause 51

POWER TO REMOVE TRESPASSERS ON LAND.

Mr. John Fraser: I beg to move amendment No. 255, in page 36, line 29, leave out 'are trespassing on land' and insert
'have entered land as trespassers'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 64, in page 36, line 30, after 'period', insert 'exceeding 48 hours'.
No. 65, in page 36, line 34, leave out
'or used threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour towards the occupier, a member of his family or an employee or agent of his.'.
No. 256, in page 36, leave out lines 41 to 46.
Government amendments Nos. 150, 151, 156, 157 and 152 to 155.

Mr. Fraser: I should like to speak about amendment No. 255 to clause 51; I will leave my Scottish friends to deal with amendments Nos. 64 and 65, and the Government to deal with their own amendments, because they do not entirely hang together.
Clause 51 is said to be directed at mass trespass, although, when the Government have cut the number down to six vehicles, I think that it should only count as a macro trespass. Clause 51 makes it a criminal offence not to leave land, having been requested to do so by a police officer, in certain circumstances, including where six or more vehicles, not people, are involved in the trespass. I suppose that that could be described as a macro trespass.
The clause also applies to more limited circumstances. For instance, it would apply to two people alone who trespass and cause damage. For instance, they may have crushed grass or hay while camping, or they may have caused nominal damage by cutting a square of turf in order to light a fire. They would be committing a criminal offence under this clause if they were requested, and then, having entered the premises as trespassers and been asked to leave, they did not do so in a reasonable time.
Amendment No. 255 restricts the offence to those who originally entered the land as trespassers, and does not

apply it to those who subsequently became trespassers because the original permission that they were given to enter the land had been ended or withdrawn.
We do not want to take up too much time on this, but let me give one example of how it might work in a quite unexpected way. Let us take the example of two people who live in a caravan, with permission, on a caravan site, intending to be there for roughly the summer season. The owner of the site then imposes a condition—for example, something which is not uncommon on caravan sites, that they must buy a new caravan through the agency of the owner of the site.
Alternatively, the owner might raise an unreasonable service charge for the site. He might then say to the two people living in the caravan that their permission to occupy the site has been terminated, notwithstanding their anticipation of being there for the entire season.
The two people involved might, quite understandably, give the site owner a bit of "verbal", which is described as threatening, abusive or insulting language. In the circumstances, I might be tempted to do the same. Yet in those circumstances, although the people did not enter the site as trespassers, and although they had permission to be there originally, they would be caught and become criminals if they did not immediately leave the site with their caravan when requested by a police officer to do so. It could involve considerable stress, loss and inconvenience to the people involved.
If we are to have the clause at all—I am unhappy about it anyway—it ought to be restricted to an invasive trespass and not be applied to what may subsequently become a trespass. If the House does not accept the amendment, the police will be placed in the invidious position of trying to decide when certain events creating a trespass took place. One can envisage an example such as I have given where relations had gone sour, anticipated arrangements had collapsed and the police were drawn into one side or other of the dispute.
We know what mischief the clause is intended to attack. I do not agree with every proposal in the clause, but we know what it is aimed at: a macro trespass or a mass trespass by vehicles. It should not be directed to the ending of a previous contractual arrangement. I hope that the Minister can sensibly accept the amendment.

Mr. Warren Hawksley: I congratulate the Government on tabling amendments Nos. 150 and 151, which deal with trespass on common land, about which I had previously been in touch with the Home Secretary, and amendments Nos. 156 and 157, which deal with trespass on rights of way. Both are necessary and desirable.
The point that I should like to make, as one who in a previous incarnation in the House was involved with seeing section 39 of the Public Order Act 1986 on to the statute book, is my concern about whether this power will be used. The previous power under section 39, which allowed officers to respond when 12 vehicles were present, has not been used by them to any great extent. I gather that the Association of Chief Police Officers has discouraged chief constables from using this power.
8.45 pm
I wonder whether the Minister can reassure the House that the new power, in its better and more easily used form, will be available. I have come across police officers who


have been involved in the problem in mid-Wales and in the west midlands, who have been told not to use section 39 of the 1986 Act. What are we doing to make sure that the new clause will be used by officers? I hope that the Minister can reassure us that he has an assurance from ACPO that it will do nothing to discourage the use of this section. Provided that he can do so, I whole-heartedly welcome the amendments.

Mr. Maclean: The Opposition amendments in this grouping constitute attempts to restrict the application of clause 51, and hence its effectiveness. Amendments Nos. 255 and 256 would do so by disapplying the clause to persons who did not enter land as trespassers but who became such subsequently. Clause 51 is a restatement and a strengthening of section 39 of the Public Order Act 1986.
The Government have become concerned that section 39 does not provide adequate protection for a landowner who may have invited people on to his land, but who has had his hospitality abused as the welcome is outstayed or the activities of those on his land become unbearable. The massive invasion at Newtown, Powys in the summer of 1992 is a case in point. There, I understand, the farmer was willing to allow the odd traveller on to his land, but, when the masses arrived, he did not have available the protection of section 39. Clause 51 represents a useful addition to the powers against those who cause blight in the countryside, and I cannot accept the Opposition's amendments.
The hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) gave an interesting example. I merely remind him that the powers of the police under this clause are discretionary. If the constable forms a reasonable belief, he may exercise his powers. I suspect that, in other hypothetical cases such as the one that the hon. Gentleman suggested—where there might be a dispute about whether they had a lease or a right to stay in a caravan on an official site—the police might be reluctant to use their powers.
In each case, there must be an interpretation of the facts at the scene as the police see them. Amendment No. 64 would prevent the police from directing travellers to leave land under the terms of clause 51 unless the police believed that the travellers were going to stay for at least 48 hours. The Government cannot accept that amendment, either.
Amendment No. 65 seeks to remove one of the triggers for the police powers to direct trespassers to leave land which are contained in clause 51. If it were carried, the fact that trespassers use threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour towards the occupier, a member of his family or an employee or agent of his would no longer be grounds for the police to take action. I find it difficult to see why the amendment should have been tabled.
New age travellers and others who trespass on land without any regard for the rights and feelings of those communities they invade are, as all sectors of the House agree, a menace.

Mr. Brian Wilson: If the measure is directed against new age travellers—I by no means accept the rationale for that—why are not they mentioned in the Bill? Why are no categories mentioned? Does the Minister agree with the Scottish Landowners Federation, which has taken the view that "specific mischiefs" should be defined in the Bill?

Mr. Maclean: I do not agree. The measure is not directed particularly, solely or only at new age travellers. In many parts of England—I accept that it is not a great

problem in Scotland yet—it is a problem, and new age travellers are the main offenders, although there may be others invading land.
I do not particularly like the laundry list approach to legislation—in other words, trying to define lists or categories of people. If we try to do that, the categories will inevitably change next day, next week or next year, and the law is constantly trying to chase them up. I would not care to try to define a new age traveller.

Mr. Wilson: Is not the opposite of the laundry list approach the catch-all approach?

Mr. Maclean: It is not exactly the opposite, because it is circumscribed by certain powers, rights and duties. The police have a discretionary power, but it is not a power which they can exercise at will or willy-nilly. I do not agree with the Scottish Landowners Federation view that the laundry list is the best approach.
I will not go on at length. I understand that the view of the House is perhaps to have a much more wide-ranging debate, including some Scottish elements, later. I hope that I shall be able to lay to rest some of the misconceptions which are rife in Scotland now about what may happen to the odd rambler who goes astray in the Scottish mountains. We will deal with that in another grouping.

Mr. Hawksley: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Maclean: I will certainly take up the point raised by my hon. Friend.
It is the Government's view that, whenever we bring in new legislation, it should be operated and used, and we except the legislation to be used. We have not gone through months in Committee and the past few days in the House to pass the new powers, and then have the police not use them. It is inevitable that there will be some circular or guidance before the legislation or its various parts comes into effect. We would expect it to be used in appropriate circumstances.
We expect the present powers in the Public Order Act 1986 to be used. We will not want any excuses from any quarter about why the existing powers should not be used.
Finally, I will merely mention Government amendments Nos. 150 to 155, which seek to clarify the police powers to remove trespassers from private and common land. I was asked in Committee to do something about common land—we have done so. Government amendments Nos. 156 and 157 are technical, and seek to clarify what types of highway are covered by clauses relating to trespass and aggravated trespass and what are not. I was also pressed on that matter in Committee, and there is a clarifying amendment which I hope the House will find useful.
With those concluding remarks, I commend the Government amendments—although, unfortunately, I will not commend the Opposition amendments to the House on this occasion.

Amendment negatived.

Amendments made: No. 150, in page 37, leave out lines 22 to 26 and insert—
'(7) In its application in England and Wales to common land this section has effect as if in the preceding subsections of it—

(a) references to trespassing or trespassers were references to acts and persons doing acts which constitute either a trespass as against the occupier or an infringement of the commoners' rights; and


(b) references to "the occupier" included the commoners or any of them or, in the case of common land to which the public has access, the local authority as well as any commoner.

(7A) Subsection (7) above does not—

(a) require action by more than one occupier; or
(b) constitute persons trespassers as against any commoner or the local authority if they are permitted to be there by the other occupier.'.

No. 151, in page 37, line 27, at end insert—
'"common land" means common land as defined in section 22 of the Commons Registration Act 1965;
commoner" means a person with rights of common as defined in section 22 of the Commons Registration Act 1965;'.

No. 156, in page 37, line 38, after 'of where it appears for the first time insert '—
(i)".'.

No. 157, in page 37, line 38, leave out from 'highway' to end of line 41 and insert—
'unless it falls within the classifications in section 54 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (footpath, bridleway or byway open to all traffic or road used as a public path) or is a cycle track under the Highways Act 1980 or the Cycle Tracks Act 1984; or
(ii) a road within the meaning of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 unless it falls within the definitions in section 151(2)(a)(ii) or (b) (footpaths and cycle tracks) of that Act or is a bridleway within the meaning of section 47 of the Countryside Scotland Act 1967;'.

No. 152, in page 37, leave out lines 42 to 45 and insert—
'the local authority", in relation to common land, means any local authority which has powers in relation to the land under section 9 of the Commons Registration Act 1965;'.

No. 153, in page 37, line 46, after "'occupier"', insert
'(and in subsection (7A) "the other occupier").'

No. 154, in page 38, leave out lines 11 to 13.

No. 155, in page 38, line 14, leave out from beginning to end of line 20 and insert—
'"trespass" means in the application of this section—

(a) in England and Wales, subject to the extensions effected by subsection (6) above, trespass as against the occupier of the land;
(b) in Scotland, entering, or as the case may be remaining on, land without lawful authority and without the occupier's consent; and

"trespassing" and "trespasser" shall be construed accordingly;'.—[Mr. Maclean.]

Clause 52

SUPPLEMENTARY POWERS OF SEIZURE

Amendments made: No. 158, in page 38, line 33, after 'has', insert ',without reasonable excuse'.

No. 159, in page 38, line 34, at beginning insert '(a)'. No. 160, in page 38, line 34, leave out 'without reasonable excuse'.

No. 161, in page 38, line 36, leave out from 'control' to end of line and insert '; or
(b) entered the land as a trespasser with a vehicle within the period of three months beginning with the day on which the direction was given,
the constable may seize and remove that vehicle.'.

No. 378, in page 38, line 37, leave out "vehicle" has' and insert "trespasser" and "vehicle" have'.—[Mr. Maclean.]

Clause 54

SUPPLEMENTARY POWERS OF ENTRY AND SEIZURE

Amendments made: No. 167, in page 40, line 26, after 'has', insert', without reasonable excuse'.

No. 168, in page 40, line 27, at beginning insert '(a)'. No. 169, in page 40, line 27, leave out 'without reasonable excuse'.

No. 170, in page 40, line 29, leave out from 'control' to end of line 30 and insert '; or
(b) entered the land as a trespasser with a vehicle or sound equipment within the period of 7 days beginning with the day on which the direction was given,
the constable may seize and remove that vehicle or sound equipment.'.—[Mr. Maclean.]

Clause 58

OFFENCE OF AGGRAVATED TRESPASS

Mr. Michael: I beg to move amendment No.6, in page 43, line 7 after 'he', insert 'intentionally'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 7, in page 43, line 9, after second 'are' insert 'immediately'.

No. 8, in page 43, line 9, leave out 'or adjoining'.

No. 9, in page 43, line 10, leave out 'anything' and insert 'any unlawful activity'.

No. 47, in page 43, line 10, leave out 'is intended by him to have' and insert 'has'.

No. 12, in page 43, line 11, leave out from 'effect' to end of line 15 and insert

'and which does have the effect—

(a) by the use of violence or threats of violence of intimidating those persons or any of them so as to deter them or any of them from engaging in that activity,
(b) of unlawfully, in addition to the unlawfulness of the act or acts of the defendant due to the trespass, obstructing or disrupting that activity.'.

No. 48, in page 43, line 21, leave out from 'to' to end of line 22 and insert
'a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.'.

No. 171, in page 43, line 26, leave out from 'section' to end of line 29 and insert "'land" does not include—

(a) the highways and roads excluded from the application of section 51 by paragraph (b) of the definition of "land" in subsection (8) of that section; or
(b) a road within the meaning of the Roads (Northern Ireland) Order 1993.'.

No. 10, in page 43, line 26, after 'include', insert 'public footpaths or bridleways or'.

No. 19, in page 43, line 26, after 'include', insert
'either land 1000 feet above sea level or'.

No. 20, in page 43, line 26, after 'include', insert
'land which has been hunted over with hounds at any time during the ten years before this Act received Royal Assent or'.

No. 23, in page 43, line 26, after 'include', insert
'land subject to an access agreement (except on a day when the access agreement provides for restriction of access to the land) or'.

No. 21, in page 43, line 27, leave out from 'highway' to 'which' in line 28.

No. 11, in clause 59, page 44, line 1, leave out from 'trespasser' to end of line 3 and insert
'whilst the lawful activity is taking place'.

No. 172, in page 44, line 2, leave out '7 days' and insert 'three months'.

No. 173, in page 44, line 16, leave out 'in the open air'

No. 174, in clause 60, page 46, line 5, after 'highway', insert 'or road'.

Mr. Michael: It must be obvious to everybody from the number of amendments that have been dealt with either formally or through discussion just what a considerable task the House has in dealing with this legislation. We are coming now to the subject of aggravated trespass, which, with the general subject of trespass, has raised immense concern.
I do not think that the way in which the House has had to deal with the issues and the Bill does great credit to the procedures of the House, or to democracy in this country. The Minister said that he did not like the laundry list approach to legislation. Frankly, we are getting from the Government the dirty washing approach—or, as it has been described, the rag-bag approach—to legislation.
They take a few extracts from a speech and throw them together, draft something without proper consultation or discussion, and throw that together in a Bill in a vain attempt to rescue the reputation of a Government and a Home Secretary who have totally failed to deal with the real issues of crime in our society.
The problem with the clause, and with this section of the Bill, is that it endangers the rights of people to enjoy the countryside and enjoy access. The amendments that we have tabled to clause 58 are designed to ensure that its scope is limited to acts of violence such as those perpetrated against hunts, which, the Government have said, it is designed to counter.
Some of the new clauses and amendments on this issue have not been selected. We have tried in clear terms to stress the importance of ensuring the freedom of access, as well as the rights to peaceful protest. The right to access exercises many people throughout the country. We want to tighten up the wording of the clause to ensure that walkers and ramblers are not penalised by the clauses, and to ensure that legitimate non-violent protest is not affected.
Many of us would have to declare interest in that matter. People involved in politics have, in a responsible and peaceful way, protested about some of the actions taken by authorities or by private organisations.
Many of us are also walkers or ramblers. I myself would like to find more time for walking in the countryside, but it is one of the recreations that I enjoy most. The problem is that the amendments are necessary because of the sloppy wording of clause 58. The clause refers to lawful activity which people are engaging in, and those committing the offence do so by deterring, obstructing or disrupting them. That is wording so broad that it could cover a farmer who was ploughing his field and closing a right of way. If ramblers were to protest at or obstruct this activity, they would be guilty of an offence.
More generally, walkers could fall foul of the proposals by walking across a shooting moor. It may not be their intention to disrupt the activity, as the clause requires, but a farmer or landowner may believe that that is the case and call in the police. It is rather too late to wait for a court case to settle the matter about intention. We all know that walkers will have experienced some intimidation and people have been prevented from enjoying the countryside. That issue greatly concerns the Ramblers Association. Our amendments would protect the rights of ramblers and walkers.
Government amendment No. 171, taken in conjunction with amendment No. 157 to clause 51, will worsen the situation and appears to mean that the clause will apply to

footpaths, which is a move in the opposite direction to our amendments, which also deal with protections for the right to legitimate peaceful protest.
9 pm
Legitimate peaceful demonstrations can obstruct or disrupt an activity against which the person or people are protesting—for example, shoppers protesting on land belonging to a shop and people protesting about the environmental consequences of major new public works. I hope that the Government do not intend to catch such legitimate demonstrators, but the phrasing is so wide that they might be caught.
Our proposals tighten up the wording to ensure that the clause hits the true target—the violent and dangerous, according to the Government—but do not inadvertently draw into its net many people who are legitimately going about their business.
There have been considerable objections and protests about those elements of the Bill that apply to Scotland. I know that Scottish colleagues will wish to make their point later and it is one which I endorse and support.
There are genuine legal grounds for fearing that the clauses will restrict freedom to walk and climb in many upland areas. The Ramblers Association, the British Mountaineering Council, which has written to me, and representatives of canoeists, who can envisage how their sport might be affected by the passage of the Bill, have obtained legal advice. All those organisations want our amendments as a minimum protection. That legal advice has been made available to the public and the Government should not disregard it.
Such a brief debate on the issue is regrettable, but we will demonstrate through our votes in the Lobby our objection to what the Government are doing and our wish to protect climbers, walkers and people who enjoy the countryside so that their enjoyment can continue unrestricted.

Mr. Roger Gale: I wish to speak to my amendments Nos. 47 and 48, which are grouped with amendment No. 6.
When I spoke in the House last night I said that I intended to force my amendments to a Division tonight. It is only right that I place on record the fact that neither has been chosen by Madam Speaker, who has it in her gift to decide what amendments we vote upon, and I cannot therefore force the Divisions that I should have liked. I am in no way challenging Madam Speaker's judgment. I understand that she felt that since we voted on that matter last night no further vote would be appropriate.
I know that hon. Members will understand that the fact that I cannot force a Division will in no way weaken the force of what I have to say or the sincerity with which I say it. I do not wish to subject the House to a re-run of our lengthy debate on the subject last night. However, I must reinforce certain points and I do so having had the chance to study last night's debate—a curious opportunity, as it is not often that one has the chance to debate the same subject two nights running.
Setting aside my rather ill-tempered contribution to that debate, certain facts emerge. First, it is clear that the Home Secretary and the Minister of State believe that clauses 57 and 58 are even handed, as they have always claimed, and I do not doubt the sincerity with which they claim and


believe that. Secondly, it is equally clear that not one reputable animal welfare organisation believes that the clauses are even handed.
From our discussions last night, it is also clear that some legal opinion disagrees with the Home Secretary. I was asked to reveal the source of the counsel's opinion that I quoted last night and I felt that it was improper to do so because I did not have the permission of the QC involved. I now have that permission—the opinion was prepared by Louis Blom-Cooper, who I understand is happy to have his name placed on the record in connection with amendments Nos. 47 and 48, which I tabled and he drafted.
I also benefited from the legal opinion of Alan Newman QC, who prepared an opinion dealing with clauses 57 and 58. I do not think that I am misrepresenting Mr. Newman by saying that he regards those clauses as shot full of inaccuracies and probably in breach of the European convention on human rights. Once I have obtained his permission, I intend to submit his opinion to the Home Secretary and I shall look forward to receiving his comments on it before the Bill reaches the House of Lords.
I am sorry that the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) is not in his place tonight. He told me last night that, as a Queen's counsel, he disagreed with the legal opinion that I had been offered. The hon. and learned Gentleman is a huntsman and I am not entirely surprised that he disagrees with that opinion—I in turn disagree with his disagreement.
I am afraid that I must introduce a slight note of rancour concerning the events of last night and the manner in which the Liberal Democratic party, at least one representative of which, I am glad to say, is present and may wish to respond, has presented its view on hunting. The last time that 
Most telling of all from a reading of the report of last night's debate are the illustrations of the very real problems caused by hunt invasion and trespass and the many cases of real human distress and tragedy that the hunt has caused and, so far as I can see from the legislation that is before us, will continue to cause. It was interesting to hear the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) indicate that there appeared to be no statistics relating to the prosecution of hunts for their trespass on other people's lands. The public may find it a little odd that the Home Secretary can—quite properly, in my view—listen to hon. Members and fine tune, for example, matters relating to video nasties or legislation concerning unlicensed taxi drivers, but is quite prepared to fly in the face of public opinion and introduce a piece of legislation which, as is indicated by the legal opinion that we have heard indicates, will restrain those who wish to protest against the hunt.
As I have already said, I wholly endorse the Home Secretary's desire to contain the unlawful activities of violent protestors. However, it is not good enough to do so without giving the ordinary householder, cottage owner,

smallholder or small farmer the right to decide whom he or she wants to have on his or her land. That principle should be clearly embraced in the legislation.
I want the Minister, when he replies, to put something firmly on the record. On the basis of what he has said to me, I hope and believe that he will be willing to do so. I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that in the case of Pepper v. Hart the principle was established that ministerial comment recorded in Hansard may be quoted in court and used as part of the substance of a case. I hope that the Minister will say very clearly that precisely the same attributes should apply to the hunt and to the landowners and that if a landowner has clearly indicated in writing to the master of hounds that he does not want the hunt on his land, disregard of that indication would be presumed to be aggravation of trespass.
Another matter that emerged from last night's debate saddens me. In this connection, I am particularly glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) has come into the Chamber. No hon. Member who spoke last night in defence of the hunt expressed any remorse or apology whatsoever for the manner in which hunts around the country have treated other people's property, land and rights. I am sure that my hon. Friend will take an opportunity tonight to place his concerns—

the House divided on the question of hunting in general the Liberal Democrats voted two to one in favour of the activity. Last night, six of them voted in favour, two voted against, and the rest abstained. I place that on the record because it is very often claimed by members of the Liberal Democratic party that they are the champions of animal welfare and are anti-hunt. Once again, it seems that their parliamentary representatives do not square with the voice in the constituency, particularly in the west country. I shall be interested to see how those hon. Members vote on the issue in future. It was my hope that they would have an opportunity tonight. That, sadly, has been denied.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Gale: Yes.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I am very glad that my hon. Friend has done me the courtesy of giving way. His refusal last night to do so was the reason for my having to speak. I am prepared to say that no one in the hunting community, the British Field Sports Society or the House condones the behaviour of those who treat other people's property and pets in an unacceptable way. In hunting, as in everything else, such things occasionally occur. However, my hon. Friend tries to turn the odd exception into the rule and, in so doing, he misleads the House and deliberately undermines the freedoms that people enjoy to carry out their legitimate pursuits.

Mr. Gale: I thought that we were making some progress, but that was a mealy-mouthed intervention. It is not a question of one or two cases. Everyone who has studied the matter in detail knows that more than 200 cases have been recorded and more occur each hunting season. [Interruption.] I should have liked to have heard my hon. Friend, who is good at contributing from a sedentary position—I wish that he would stand up and make his own speech—say unequivocally on behalf of the British Field Sports Society that it is his policy not to trespass on land under any circumstances when he is told that he is not wanted. He should not simply say that but should abide by it. Had he done that, much of the debate tonight could have been avoided. It is largely because of the attitude of those who hunt that this part of the debate is necessary.

Mr. Elliot Morley: Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that the hon. Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) did not use the opportunity to condemn the violence of hunt supporters against those who demonstrate against the hunt? He tried to justify it in last night's debate. Does the hon. Gentleman also agree that, far from there being just the odd incident, Nick Fawcett, Master of the Surrey Union Foxhounds said:


I don't think I've seen a meet this year where we've not gone through someone's back garden."?

Mr. Gale: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster will take the opportunity of this short debate to clarify his position. The House will welcome it if he does so.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State has said clearly and unequivocally that he does not intend to make trespass a criminal offence, so the landowner is simply left with the existing position—the civil law.
Another opinion on trespass says:
If you are able to identify the trespassers, you could take legal action through the civil court for simple trespass, but the deterrent effect and damages awarded are likely to be negligible and not cost effective. A court injunction to prevent further trespass would be far more effective; but these are hard—and expensive —to obtain, requiring identification of individuals … and evidence that they are likely to trespass on your land.
That is not an opinion prepared for the League Against Cruel Sports or the Anti-Hunt Council. It was prepared in a paper entitled "Disruption of Angling", which is a British Field Sports Society brief for angling clubs. In that document, the society kicks the bottom out of the existing law and makes it abundantly plain that, to all intents and purposes, once the Bill is on the statute book, there will be one law for the hunt and another for those who do not want the hunt on their land. That is undesirable and I hope that another place will return to it and table amendments on it.
Were my amendments carried, they would at least have
had the effect of making the Bill genuinely even handed. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will at least make his intention for future quoting in court cases abundantly clear.

Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) made some remarks about my hon. Friends. It follows the tradition of the House on matters such as hunting that votes are cast on an individual basis rather than on a party line. His attempt to turn the matter into a party issue in referring to the attitude of Liberal Democrats was peculiar and inapposite in the light of the division within his own ranks on the subject.
9.15 pm
The hon. Gentleman has no right to assume that those who voted against the amendment that he presented as being about hunting did so because they support hunting. Some of us considered that it was a dog's breakfast of an amendment and did not deserve to be incorporated into the law. The only way to deal with the hunting issue is to have a straight vote on it—either one is for it or against it. Despite the hon. Gentleman's attempt, from a sedentary position—he took exception to that in the case of his hon. Friend—to misrepresent the position, the choice was not put before the House last night. The aim of my hon. and right hon. Friends in approaching these matters—[Interruption.]

Mr. Paul Flynn: I thank the hon. Gentleman. In last night's vote, two of the hon. Gentlemen's colleagues from his own party voted in favour of the amendment, a number voted against it, several abstained from the vote and a number were not present for the vote. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that proves once again that the Liberal Democrats are all things to all constituencies?

Mr. MacLennan: We took the view that, because of the nature of the amendment, it was reasonable that there be a free vote on it and different people took different views on the issue. That is not the position in respect of the matters that we are discussing at the moment.
In turning to the main purpose of this group of amendments—there are a rather large number of amendments grouped together—I make it clear that my hon. and right hon. Friends and I support measures that are likely to secure public order in an even-handed manner, but which do not at the same time criminalise peaceful protestors or innocent parties such as hill walkers or ramblers. Several of our amendments designed to achieve these aims have unfortunately not been selected, but a number of other amendments deal with cognate issues.
I say in passing that that intention was supported by the Scottish Landowners Federation in a letter to me. The federation said that it accepted that it would be desirable to exclude, specifically, bone fide walkers and climbers from the scope of clause 58, although it took the view that they were not at risk as the clause was presently drafted. However, the federation would welcome the inclusion of the amendment for the avoidance of doubt.
Amendment No. 6—the lead amendment in the group —is one which I support. I believe that trespass must be intentional and that the amendment would assist in protecting walkers. However, if landowners erect signs warning against trespass—which I am afraid is probably likely to happen—the amendment will not be very
practicable.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: When the hon. Gentleman refers to the possibility of signs being erected warning people about the issues of access, could he clarify whether he believes that this should be a transfer from civil law to criminal law? Certainly, within the context of this legislation we are moving from breach of the peace—which is the Scottish legislative process—to a criminal situation. I would very much welcome his views on that point.

Mr. Maclennan: I think that the Law Society of Scotland has dealt with that issue very well and I strongly support its view. I believe that there will be an opportunity later to consider the Scottish position separately.
Amendment No. 8 provides that the offence cannot be committed on land adjoining the site of illegal activity, only on the land itself. I think that the amendment is designed to protect peaceful protest, which I support. Similarly, I support amendment No. 9, which provides that the offence can be committed only by carrying out an unlawful activity rather than any activity. That would also help to protect peaceful protests.
The Government's intentions are acceptable in that the present law is inadequate to deal with the sort of invasions that have taken place. I think that the Minister of State referred to one such invasion in Powys, in the constituency of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile). Those are real problems and we need a response to them.
The problems raise difficult issues of balance. Throughout the debate, we have tried to achieve balance through the amendments that we have tabled. We are concerned about ramblers and hill walkers. I hope that the


Minister will have something to say about that. If he does not succeed in satisfying the House, I have no doubt that the matter will be raised again in another place.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I support the proposals of the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale). However, I want not to talk about them, but to spend a few minutes supporting amendment No. 6. I wish to emphasise the concerns of the Ramblers Association, the Peak and Northern Footpaths Society, the British Mountaineering Council and a large number of walkers and ramblers.
It is ironic that, when we have high levels of crime, the Government appear to want to make criminals of people who have gone about their business perfectly peacefully in the past and, I am sure, will continue to do so in future. It would be far better if the Government concentrated their efforts on those people who have been committing crimes rather than on trying to increase the categories of crime. Nothing that I have heard has suggested that, in trying to deal with the problem of hunt saboteurs, the Government have not dragged another group of people into the scope of the legislation.
I am concerned about mountain safety. I hope that the Minister can explain how he can guarantee that if people are on mountains, they will not be caught by the legislation if they choose to come down in the safest way because of a substantial change in the weather and their circumstances.
Something has begun to happen fairly frequently in the Peak district, particularly where there are substantial grouse moors. In the past, where access agreements to the moors were granted, walkers knew that for all but three or four named days in the year, they were perfectly free to roam over the mountain areas. On those named days, they knew that shooting would take place and they arranged their walks to avoid them. Sadly, as a result of some of the saboteurs' activities that have occasionally occurred on grouse moors, instead of the days of closure being announced well in advance, they are often posted the day before or on the day itself.
Therefore, it is possible to plan a walk of perhaps 20 or 30 miles across the moors with a group of people and, as one approaches the end of the walk, suddenly to come across a section that is supposed to be closed because a shoot is being held that day. It would be far better for adequate notice to be given so that people can plan alternative routes. I very much regret that adequate notice is no longer being given.
In those circumstances, a return or other journey to avoid descending on to the grouse moors may be extremely difficult and, if the weather deteriorates, positively dangerous. It is perfectly reasonable for a person using such a route to make his descent abundantly clear by making a noise, to ensure that he is not at any risk from the people shooting on the moors. That is just common sense. In effect, however, that person is likely to disrupt that activity.

Mr. Maclean: In the circumstances that the hon. Gentleman described, would the walker have the deliberate intention of disrupting the activity?

Mr. Bennett: To ensure that no one was shooting, the walker would have deliberately to curtail the activity, to protect his own safety. Perhaps the Minister can give an

assurance to the contrary. I would have thought that he would have studied the amendments and included such a safeguard in the Bill.
I shall leave my Scottish colleagues to explain the situation in Scotland, but I imagine that a similar situation applies there, particularly where deer stalking takes place. The safety problems are much more substantial than in the Pennines, because distances are often much greater and the weather deteriorates more quickly. The Minister must address the problem, so that walkers do not have to choose between endangering their safety and becoming criminals.
In recent years, the Ramblers Association has legitimately campaigned for greater access to upland areas, mountains and moorlands. Each autumn, it has staged a mass trespass day, when organised groups peacefully walk along routes that ought to be open to the general public. The association has done a good job of drawing attention to such routes and of persuading many national parks and local authorities to reach agreement with landowners about providing public access.
Under the Bill, such mass trespass days would be difficult to organise. As soon as a group announced a peaceful demonstration that would cause no damage to a piece of land, the landowner could organise an activity that would make it impossible for the walkers to cross the land without disrupting that activity, in which case they would be caught by the new legislation. The Minister ought to make it clear that it is not his intention that the clause will be used to stop peaceful demonstrations.
I tabled a series of amendments that would enable the Minister to rule out many parts of the country where there is no problem with hunting by introducing a height limit that would exclude parts of the United Kingdom. The Minister frowns, but it would be perfectly reasonable to exclude any area above 1,000 ft. There is little justification for applying the clause to Wales, and there will be a debate later on not applying it to Scotland.
The Minister ought to remember that large numbers of people enjoy walking on our hills, and a smaller number enjoy rock climbing. Almost all pursue their activities peacefully and in a way that harms no one else. It is sad that the Government want to turn peaceful enjoyment of the mountains into a criminal activity.

Mr. Trimble: In Committee, I tabled an amendment to emphasise that we were anxious that what is now clause 58 should apply to Northern Ireland. The Minister stated that consideration would be given to that request, and I acknowledge that Government amendments Nos. 171 and 80 will have the welcome effect of extending clause 58 to Northern Ireland. I particularly welcome the fact that it has been done through the Bill rather than leaving us to wait for an Order in Council, which might take ages.

Mr. Maclean: That confirms the view that I was developing in Committee—that I was being far too generous to the hon. Gentleman and extending too many concessions to him and his hon. Friends from Northern Ireland.
Before I deal with a point that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale), I shall deal with the main concern of some Opposition Members which lies behind the group of amendments that they have tabled. I do not know how this illegal hare got running, but I cannot imagine the circumstances in which the powers in clause 58 could be used against bona fide hill walkers—


even fake hill walkers for that matter—ramblers, climbers or a person doing Munro bagging, especially when his ankle recovers. All those people are not likely to be caught by the clause.
I used to have discussions with the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), who is a member of the Ramblers Association, when I was a Minister at the Department of the Environment. I have just written to Mr. Mattingly, trying to explain, in no uncertain terms, that I could not imagine ramblers being caught by the new clause. What would ramblers, walkers or anyone else have to do before they would fall foul of the clause?

Mr. Morley: rose—

Mr. Maclean: No. I wish to conclude.
This is what they would have to do. First, they would have to trespass. Secondly, they would have to intend to disrupt or obstruct a lawful activity. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish made the case about walkers being caught in a whiteout, or coming down the side of the mountain and then being forced to walk through some lawful activity to save their lives or protect themselves from the weather. Although that may have caused disruption and intervened in a lawful activity, unless they had the deliberate intention of disrupting that activity, they would not be caught by the amendment.

Mrs. Ewing: Surely the issue at stake is who defines what is a deliberate intention. Would the Minister care to define that and write it into the Bill?

Mr. Maclean: First, it will be the constable on the scene who will decide whether he should form the reasonable belief that people may have done that. Then, of course, it is up to the court.

Mrs. Ewing: Does that mean that the Minister will argue that, on 12 August, during grouse shooting, constables will be appropriated from the local police force to be constantly in attendance? If so, will he put the resources into that?

Mr. Maclean: The hon. Lady misunderstands the point. The amendment does not give landowners or lairds some private right to demand a police presence on all their land. It is entirely up to chief constables how they deploy their resources. It does not happen in England at the moment, even in areas where there is disruption. No landowner has the right to say, "I want a team of policemen guarding my shoot, my ploughing match or fishing match." It is entirely up to the chief constables to decide whether there are sufficient grounds or sufficient public—[Interruption.] We want to make progress tonight. If the Opposition want to shout me down, I am happy to resume my seat right now —[Interruption.] In that case, I am happy to draw my remarks to a conclusion by saying that I can see no prospect of this law being used against legitimate walkers, climbers or any others who are carrying out a lawful activity.

Mr. Morley: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Maclean: No.
It can be used only against people, whether they are doctors, ministers of religion, politicians or whatever, if they deliberately intend to disrupt or obstruct a lawful activity and are trespassing to do so.
Finally, I wish to deal with the point that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North in amendment No. 47. I know that he feels strongly about the Government's proposals on aggravated trespass, but I fear that I do not think that his amendment would be an improvement. If carried, aggravated trespass would catch only those who succeeded in obstructing or disrupting a lawful activity, or who succeeded in intimidating persons so as to deter them from taking part in one. Those who tried to disrupt and, for whatever reason, failed would be immune from prosecution. That cannot be right.
We discussed this last night so I shall mention only briefly the fact that the amendment would also remove the need for a mens rea. It would catch all obstruction or disruption of lawful activities by trespassers, whether or not they intended to cause such obstruction or disruption. That would widen the offence considerably. A rambler who happened to stray on to private land and, for example, disrupted farming activity quite accidentally or unintentionally, would be guilty of aggravated trespass if we went along with my hon. Friend's suggestion. That cannot be the right solution either.
I have thought carefully about what my hon. Friend has said and about the discussions that we have had in private. I regret to tell him that I cannot find an alternative way to deal with the mischief that exists and which was
acknowledged by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan).

Mr. Gale: I asked my hon. Friend the Minister to put on record a very specific undertaking. Does he believe that the legislation will apply even handedly to the hunt and the landowner? If so, if notice has been given to a hunt by a landowner that he does not want the hunt on his land, will it be regarded as aggravated trespass if the hunt crosses his land?

Mr. Maclean: I am absolutely convinced that the law is even handed. Anyone who invades someone else's land, intending to cause disruption, will fall foul of the law. I condemn anyone who causes such disruption and I condemn hunts or people who deliberately set out to do so —they deserve to receive the full weight of the law. It would be deplorable if anyone behaved in that way at the moment, but it will be even more so in future, and he will then be caught by the law. The point of interest for my hon. Friend is that it would be up to the courts to decide proof of intention after a notice had been served to the effect that a landowner did not want someone on his land. I cannot give a guarantee—[Interruption.] Pepper v. Hart relates only to interpretation of the law where it is ambiguous. The legislation is not ambiguous—it is clear and even handed to all involved. We do not need to build into it exemptions for any category of people because every person is exempt if he obeys the law and every person will be caught if he intends to cause disruption.

Mr. Michael: With the leave of the House, I shall speak again.
The Minister clearly does not understand what he is doing in bringing this bad law before the House. He is defending badly drafted and impractical law which will be unfair to walkers and others who use the countryside. I


invite my hon. Friends and any Conservatives who care about such issues to vote for amendment No. 9 in order to express our distaste for the Government's rejection of the pleas that have been made in our debate.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment proposed: No. 9, in page 43, line 10, leave out 'anything' and insert 'any unlawful activity'.—[Mr. Michael.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 244, Noes 290.

Division No. 204]
[9.37 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Dowd, Jim


Adams, Mrs Irene
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Ainger, Nick
Eagle, Ms Angela


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Enright, Derek


Allen, Graham
Etherington, Bill


Alton, David
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Armstrong, Hilary
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Ashton, Joe
Faulds, Andrew


Austin-Walker, John
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Barnes, Harry
Fisher, Mark


Barron, Kevin
Flynn, Paul


Bayley, Hugh
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Foster, Don (Bath)


Bell, Stuart
Fraser, John


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Fyfe, Maria


Bennett, Andrew F.
Galbraith, Sam


Benton, Joe
Galloway, George


Bermingham, Gerald
Gapes, Mike


Berry, Roger
Garrett, John


Betts, Clive
George, Bruce


Blair, Tony
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Boateng, Paul
Godsiff, Roger


Bradley, Keith
Golding, Mrs Llin


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Gordon, Mildred


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Graham, Thomas


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Burden, Richard
Grocott, Bruce


Byers, Stephen
Gunnell, John


Caborn, Richard
Hain, Peter


Callaghan, Jim
Hanson, David


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Harvey, Nick


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Heppell, John


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Cann, Jamie
Hinchliffe, David


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hoey, Kate


Clapham, Michael
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Home Robertson, John


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hood, Jimmy


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hoon, Geoffrey


Clelland, David
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Coffey, Ann
Hoyle, Doug


Connarty, Michael
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Corbett, Robin
Hutton, John


Corbyn, Jeremy
Illsley, Eric


Corston, Ms Jean
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Cousins, Jim
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Cox, Tom
Jamieson, David


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Janner, Greville


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Dafis, Cynog
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Darling, Alistair
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Davidson, Ian
Jowell, Tessa


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Keen, Alan


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)


Denham, John
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Dixon, Don
Khabra, Piara S.


Dobson, Frank
Kilfedder, Sir James


Donohoe, Brian H.
Kilfoyle, Peter





Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Kirkwood, Archy
Radice, Giles


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Randall, Stuart


Lewis, Terry
Raynsford, Nick


Livingstone, Ken
Reid, Dr John


Llwyd, Elfyn
Rendel, David


Loyden, Eddie
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Lynne, Ms Liz
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


McAllion, John
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


McAvoy, Thomas
Rogers, Allan


McCartney, Ian
Rooker, Jeff


Macdonald, Calum
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


McFall, John
Rowlands, Ted


McKelvey, William
Ruddock, Joan


McLeish, Henry
Sedgemore, Brian


Maclennan, Robert
Sheerman, Barry


McMaster, Gordon
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McWilliam, John
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Madden, Max
Short, Clare


Maddock, Mrs Diana
Simpson, Alan


Mahon, Alice
Skinner, Dennis


Mandelson, Peter
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Marek, Dr John
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Soley, Clive


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Spearing, Nigel


Martlew, Eric
Speller, John


Maxton, John
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Meacher, Michael
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Meale, Alan
Steinberg, Gerry


Michael, Alun
Stevenson, George


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Stott, Roger


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Milburn, Alan
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Miller, Andrew
Turner, Dennis


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Tyler, Paul


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Vaz, Keith


Morgan, Rhodri
Wallace, James


Morley, Elliot
Walley, Joan


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Wareing, Robert N


Mudie, George
Watson, Mike


Mullin, Chris
Welsh, Andrew


Murphy, Paul
Wicks, Malcolm


O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)
Wigley, Dafydd


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


O'Hara, Edward
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Olner, William
Wilson, Brian


O'Neill, Martin
Winnick, David


Parry, Robert
Wise, Audrey


Patchett, Terry
Worthington, Tony


Pendry, Tom
Wray, Jimmy


Pickthall, Colin
Wright, Dr Tony


Pike, Peter L.
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)



Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Mr. Jon Owen Jones and


Primarolo, Dawn
Mr. Neil Gerrard.


Purchase, Ken



NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Beggs, Roy


Aitken, Jonathan
Bellingham, Henry


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Bendall, Vivian


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Beresford, Sir Paul


Amess, David
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Arbuthnot, James
Blackburn, Dr John G.


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Booth, Hartley


Ashby, David
Boswell, Tim


Atkins, Robert
Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Bowden, Andrew


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Bowis, John


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Brandreth, Gyles


Baldry, Tony
Brazier, Julian


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Bright, Graham


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Bates, Michael
Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)


Batiste, Spencer
Browning, Mrs. Angela






Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Hargreaves, Andrew


Budgen, Nicholas
Harris, David


Burns, Simon
Haselhurst, Alan


Burt, Alistair
Hawkins, Nick


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Hawksley, Warren


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hayes, Jerry


Carrington, Matthew
Heald, Oliver


Carttiss, Michael
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Cash, William
Hendry, Charles


Chapman, Sydney
Hicks, Robert


Churchill, Mr
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Clappison, James
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Horam, John


Coe, Sebastian
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Colvin, Michael
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Congdon, David
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Conway, Derek
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Couchman, James
Hunter, Andrew


Gran, James
Jack, Michael


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Jenkin, Bernard


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Jessel, Toby


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Day, Stephen
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Devlin, Tim
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Dickens, Geoffrey
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Key, Robert


Dover, Den
Kirkhope, Timothy


Duncan, Alan
Knapman, Roger


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Dunn, Bob
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Dykes, Hugh
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Eggar, Tim
Knox, Sir David


Elletson, Harold
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Legg, Barry


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Leigh, Edward


Evennett, David
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Faber, David
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Fabricant, Michael
Lidington, David


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Lightbown, David


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Fishburn, Dudley
Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)


Forman, Nigel
Lord, Michael


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Luff, Peter


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Forth, Eric
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
MacKay, Andrew


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Maclean, David


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
McLoughlin, Patrick


French, Douglas
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Gale, Roger
Madel, Sir David


Gallie, Phil
Maitland, Lady Olga


Gardiner, Sir George
Malone, Gerald


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Mans, Keith


Garnier, Edward
Marland, Paul


Gill, Christopher
Marlow, Tony


Gillan, Cheryl
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Mates, Michael


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Gorst, John
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)
Merchant, Piers


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Mills, Iain


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Grylls, Sir Michael
Moate, Sir Roger


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Hague, William
Monro, Sir Hector


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Moss, Malcolm


Hampson, Dr Keith
Needham, Richard


Hanley, Jeremy
Nelson, Anthony


Hannam, Sir John
Neubert, Sir Michael





Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Stephen, Michael


Nicholls, Patrick
Stewart, Allan


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Streeter, Gary


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Sumberg, David


Norris, Steve
Sweeney, Walter


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Sykes, John


Oppenheim, Phillip
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Ottaway, Richard
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Page, Richard
Temple-Morris, Peter


Paice, James
Thomason, Roy


Patnick, Irvine
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Patten, Rt Hon John
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Pawsey, James
Thurnham, Peter


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Pickles, Eric
Tracey, Richard


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Tredinnick, David


Porter, David (Waveney)
Trend, Michael


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Trimble, David


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Trotter, Neville


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Twinn, Dr Ian


Richards, Rod
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Riddick, Graham
Viggers, Peter


Robathan, Andrew
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Walden, George


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Ross, William (E Londonderry)
Waller, Gary


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Shaw, David (Dover)
Waterson, Nigel


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Watts, John


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Wells, Bowen


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Whitney, Ray


Shersby, Michael
Whittingdale, John


Sims, Roger
Widdecombe, Ann


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Wilkinson, John


Soames, Nicholas
Willetts, David


Speed, Sir Keith
Wilshire, David


Spencer, Sir Derek
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Wolfson, Mark


Spink, Dr Robert
Yeo, Tim


Spring, Richard
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Sproat, Iain



Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Tellers for the Noes


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Mr. Timothy Wood and


Steen, Anthony
Mr. Robert G. Hughes.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment made: No. 171, in page 43, line 26, leave out from 'section' to end of line 29 and insert

"'land" does not include—

(a) the highways and roads excluded from the application of section 51 by paragraph (b) of the definition of "land" in subsection (8) of that section; or
(b) a road within the meaning of the Roads (Northern Ireland) Order 1993.'—[Mr. Maclean.]

Clause 59

POWERS TO REMOVE PERSONS COMMITTING OR PARTICIPATING IN AGGRAVATED TRESPASS

Amendments made: No. 172, in page 44, line 2, leave out '7 days' and insert 'three months'.

No. 173, in page 44, line 16, leave out 'in the open air'. —[Mr. Maclean.]

Clause 60

TRESPASSORY ASSEMBLIES

Amendment made: No. 174, in page 46, line 5, after 'highway', insert 'or road'.—[Mr. Maclean.]

Clause 66

INTERIM POSSESSION ORDERS: FAILURE TO COMPLY AN OFFENCE

Mr. Maclennan: I beg to move amendment No. 33, in page 52, line 13, after 'hours', insert
`in non-residential premises, or seven working days in residential premises,'.

Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take amendment No. 67, in page 52, line 18, at end insert—
'2(A) Where a person is charged with an offence under subsection (2) it shall be a defence for him to prove that at the time the interim possession order was served on him he had reasonable grounds for believing that he was entitled to remain in occupation of the premises.'.

Mr. Maclennan: Amendment No. 33 is not designed in any way to undermine the purpose of the Government's intentions in dealing with squatters. As the law stands, it allows an unacceptable process of delay to take place which can prevent the true owners of a residence from recovering the occupancy of their premises. The Government were entirely right to introduce this clause, but the proposal that it should be possible to evict squatters within 24 hours of the serving of a writ is too summary and too likely to wreak injustice. A period of seven days would be more reasonable.
May I point out, as I think that I did at an earlier stage, that the circumstances in which it is discovered that people are squatting are not in any sense uniform. I know of one occasion when a tenant of a property was served with a notice to quit by a bank, which was the true owner of the property. The tenant held a wholly invalid lease from a third party who had been dispossessed by the bank and he had no knowledge of the fact that he was a squatter. In such circumstances, although he is technically and clearly a squatter, it would be reasonable to allow a certain amount a time to elapse to put one's house in order. I hope that the Minister will not view the amendment as undermining the purposes of the clause, but rather as fortifying its equity.

Mr. Trimble: I shall follow briefly what the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) said and especially develop the example that he used. It is quite appropriate to remember that in such circumstances we may be dealing not only with the property owner and a squatter, but with third parties who have behaved dishonestly. There may be circumstances in which persons are squatting in a property, yet none the less believe that they are entitled to be there because of the fraud of some other person. Amendment No. 67 is designed to deal with that situation. It is not intended in any way to disrupt the operation of the legislation and I agree that there should be more effective remedies to enable the property owner to regain possession.
May I simply ask the Minister this: if a person has reasonable grounds for believing that he is entitled to remain in possession of a property, how can it be just to convict him of an offence and make him a criminal, if he has reasonable grounds? The amendment would operate only when someone has reasonable grounds for believing that he is entitled to remain in possession of the property. The term "reasonable" obviously imports subjective criteria, which may be examined by the courts if the circumstances arise. As a result of the fraud of some other

party, how can it be right to make the person occupying a property, who believes that he is entitled to be there, a criminal?

Mr. Maclean: I understand the concern of the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) that the new interim possession procedure should not operate unjustly. I share his concern, which is why clause 65 makes it an offence to seek an interim possession order under false pretences. However, I am afraid that I cannot accept the two amendments.
The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) would extend the period of grace allowed to squatters in residential premises after they have been served with an interim possession order from 24 hours to seven days. That is too long. The minimum delay between serving a summons on squatters and a court hearing under the existing procedure is only five days. The whole point of the new procedure is that it should be quicker than the existing one, which has been found to be unacceptably slow and is open to tactical delays by squatters.
My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor is proposing a delay of 24 hours between ordering squatters to leave and seeking an interim possession order, so, effectively, squatters will have 48 hours to seek legitimate accommodation. I do not think that we would be justified in prolonging that period at the expense of the lawful owners and occupiers of property. Under the Lord Chancellor's proposals, the new procedure will be available for only 28 days after the presence of the squatters is discovered. The scenario outlined by the hon. Member for Upper Bann will therefore be covered.
I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's intentions, but his defence is unacceptable and would seriously undermine the new procedure by opening up a substantial loophole for squatters. All squatters could routinely claim that they believed that they were lawful tenants and entitled to disregard the interim possession order. The police would then have to decide whether to act against them and would probably decide not to do so in most cases.
If a case came before the magistrates, they would similarly have to assess a claim not that the alleged squatters were in fact entitled to remain but that they had reasonable grounds for believing that they were. Squatters would produce false leases or allege that they had been given the keys and were licensees, as they do at present. All the advantages that the new procedure is intended to bring would be lost and aggrieved owners would probably find the new procedure even less effective than the existing civil remedy.
Under our proposals, all that the police will have to decide is whether a civil court's order has been obeyed —questions about the merits of the civil case are nothing to do with them. Similarly, if a case goes before the magistrates, the only question will be whether the interim possession order was complied with within 24 hours as required. One of the main reasons why the Government did not wish simply to criminalise squatting per se was to avoid entangling the police and magistrates in complicated questions about the civil law of trespass, with which they are not equipped to deal.
It is also undesirable in principle to create a statutory right to disobey a court order. If people believe that they are not squatters, they will have a right under the new


procedure to a full hearing of the case after they have obeyed the interim order. People who are served with a court order to leave premises within 24 hours cannot reasonably believe that they are entitled to disregard it. For those reasons, I must reject the amendments from the hon. Members for Caithness and Sutherland and for Upper Bann.

Mr. Maclennan: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 67

POWER OF LOCAL AUTHORITY TO DIRECT UNAUTHORISED CAMPERS TO LEAVE LAND

Sir David Mitchell: I beg to move amendment No. 134, in page 52, line 42, at end insert—
'and that any of those persons has caused damage to the land or to property, or used threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour towards the occupier, a member of his family, or an employee or agent of his; or that the site is visible to large numbers of persons; or that persons resorting to the site have deposited any substance capable of polluting the land or the environment outside their caravan or similar living accommodation'.

Madam Speaker: With this, we may discuss the following amendments: No. 135, in page 53, line 47, at end insert
'provided that it is satisfied that there is somewhere else in the locality for them to go either temporarily or permanently'.
No. 272, in page 55, line 34, leave out from 'sites)' to the end of line 37 and insert
'will be repealed after the period of 5 years after this Act has received Royal Assent.'.

Sir David Mitchell: The Bill gives new and stronger powers to the police and local authorities to move travellers on. The police powers depend on travellers causing a nuisance, but the local authority power operates whether or not they cause a nuisance. Amendment No. 134 requires the local authority, in the exercise of its powers, to be subject to a similar test as that for police powers—for example, causing damage, threatening or abusive language, the site not being tucked out of sight, polluting the land and so on.
I fear that there will be problems if amendments Nos. 134 and 135 are not accepted. It is easy for the Government to take authoritarian powers to move people on. The question is where do they go. The answer is likely to be somewhere a good deal worse. I shall give a practical example. In my constituency for somewhat overlong a particular scrubland site—common land—has been occupied by a small group of gipsies. Mr. Bob Dodd and the others were moved on about a month ago. As a result, they moved about 700 yd away and ended up close to some houses and near a river. Indeed, they are on a much more prominent and unsuitable site than they were before. I fear that if the Bill is not amended, that will be a microcosm of what will happen in the future. Gipsies, travellers and the like will be moved on, but will settle on somewhere worse and more unsuitable than the place that they occupied originally.
May I just pause to put this into context? Britain has a long tradition and record of not persecuting nonconforming minorities, and those of a nomadic way of life are just one of those minorities. Before there were planning controls, gipsies had umpteen rural sites to which they could go, provided that they did not cause a nuisance, but we in Parliament have introduced intensive planning controls. We have denied travellers the use of their traditional stopover sites. We are now invited to have them moved on, nuisance or not, whether or not there is somewhere available to which they can go. My amendment No. 135 means that when the gipsy fails to move on—

It being Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business),
That, at this day's sitting, the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Michael Brown.]

Question agreed to.

Sir David Mitchell: My amendment No. 135 means that when the gipsies fail to move on and the council goes to the magistrates, the court must satisfy itself that there is somewhere else in the locality where they can go, temporarily or permanently.
The situation is worse than it appears. At the same time as he seeks new powers to move people on more quickly and easily, the Minister has made it less likely that there will be somewhere for them to go. While admitting that fewer than 40 per cent. of councils have made adequate provision, he has repealed the duty of councils to provide adequate gipsy sites. He has repealed the grants to councils to provide sites and withdrawn the circular countenancing gipsy sites in green belts, often the gipsies' natural habitat. He has issued a new circular which specifically refers to planning authorities avoiding encroachment on open countryside for gipsy sites. Even though the Minister must know that gipsies can only afford to buy agricultural land in rural areas, nevertheless that prohibition has been introduced by his latest circular.
When the Minister proposed stringent powers to move travellers on and closing many of the places that they may have hoped to go to, I asked him what they should do. He replied:
We believe that in future travellers should seek to make provision through the planning system.
He added:
I have every confidence, however, that if gipsies make proper applications to local planning authorities, they will be provided with planning permission."—[Official Report, 26 July 1993; Vol. 229, c.972.]
I must take the Minister into the real world where 90 per cent. of all gipsy planning applications are refused. Any gipsy site application in the south-east of England will meet implacable opposition from local residential groups, which will have solicitors, barristers and planning consultants available to them.
I have an example. Over the years, a Mr. Cooper has sought a gipsy site in a Hampshire location. Hampshire county council, not Mr. Cooper, told me that his costs have exceeded £10,000. Where do the Mr. Bob Dodds of this world and the like, to whom I referred earlier, get the money to pursue a planning application on that scale? What happens to the semi-literate gipsy? What address can be put on a planning application? Will a council entertain a planning application from someone of no fixed address? Does the Minister really expect some of the more


disadvantaged of our fellow citizens, some of wham are semi-literate, to take on the whole force of implacable local opposition to a planning site application?
What we need is transitional sites with four things: privacy, a standpipe for water, a lavatory and a skip for rubbish, and nothing else. Those people want to be alone, away, not part of town or village life. It is something that we should not deny them. After all, they make no great call on the public purse. They do not expect to be given mortgage relief, they do not seek council housing and they do not claim housing benefit.
We should seriously consider what is to happen to those people when the new powers are exercised to move them on from the site that they are on, with no proper site for them to go to and with the certitude that they will turn up somewhere where they will be a darned sight more of a nuisance than they were in the first place.

Mr. Fraser: I wish to speak to amendment No. 272, but I must say how much I admired what the hon. Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell) had to say. I agreed with almost every word.
One does not say this lightly, but what the Government are doing with the Bill will lead to something like ethnic harassment and the chasing of a group of vulnerable people from one part of the country to another. In Committee, we took the strongest possible exception to the abolition of the duty of local authorities to provide gipsy sites. It is a duty with which I was proud to be associated in a Labour Government. Also, I was a Minister in the Labour Government who provided the 100 per cent. grant.
The clause would throw the matter entirely out of balance. The abolition of the duty of local authorities to provide designated sites is almost as effective as the abolition of the 100 per cent. grant in preventing new sites from being set up. As soon as the grant goes, there will be no possibility of more than a handful of local authorities providing sites. At present, at least 38 per cent. of local authorities have provided sides.
We tabled amendment No. 272 because we cannot vote again on Report on the abolition of the duty. We chose to table instead an amendment in relation to ending the 100 per cent grant.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: Is not it a fact that all the organisations that have been canvassed for their views on this, including Save the Children and many responsible organisations, have said clearly that the Government have got it wrong? If the Government are not prepared to revoke this section of the Bill tonight, those organisations will be strongly in favour of an amendment such as that to which my hon. Friend is speaking, which seeks to delay the provision for another five years.

Mr. Fraser: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The amendment is the only alternative which we can put through on Report. He is also absolutely right that almost every single representation that Committee members had from caring organisations and organisations that understand the problem were wholly against the line that the Government are taking.
A Labour Government recognised that we had to have a humane and civilised balance between the rights of gipsies on one hand and the needs and understandable concerns of ordinary communities on the other.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: Is my hon. Friend aware that the police have also expressed concerns about the repeal of the Caravan Sites Act 1968? They are concerned that, if the Act is repealed, travellers will be moved from constabulary to constabulary in ever-decreasing circles at great public expense which will waste police time?

Mr. Fraser: That is absolutely right. No expenditure will be saved and police time will be wasted. If there is an alleged nuisance, it will be replaced in place after place as people are harassed from one part of the country to another.
We recognise that there are people whose habitual way of life is nomadic and who are known as gipsies. They have existed in this county as a separate ethnic group for hundreds of years. George Borrow described them as saying that the open air was a life which was very sweet. They have a separate language, and some English words are borrowed from the gipsy language. The word "pal" —I do not think that gipsies would use that word with regard to the Ministers—is a romany word. They have a separate way of life, and they have been horribly persecuted.
Europe is recognising the rights of ethnic groups and it must be the worst possible time to put law backwards as the Bill does. We recognise their separate rights and the legitimate concern which members of the public have about gipsy encampments. It is a real problem in our increasingly urban countryside, and more industrialisation in the countryside means that there is less prospect of employment for gipsies. We recognised that a balance had to be struck and we struck it by including a duty on local authorities to provide the sites and giving them the resources to do so. Hand in hand with that provision went the restrictions that were available to the local authorities that provided the sites.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: What is the difference between a gipsy and a traveller and does the Caravan Sites Act 1968 apply only to gipsies or also to travellers? If it applies to new age travellers, is it not the case that, by obliging local authorities to provide sites, we are encouraging an ever-increasing number of new age travellers and therefore the ever-increasing provision of sites, which will cost ever-increasing sums of public money?

Mr. Fraser: I think that about a month ago the Solicitors' Journal contained a thorough discussion of the subject. The 1968 Act provided for people with a separate, nomadic way of life and drew a distinction between gipsies, as a recognised group, and travellers.
There should be a balance. One was struck in the 1968 Act, but this legislation will impose a harsh and harassing regime on a people whose way of life has been established for centuries, thus putting them under more pressure, and will tilt the balance of the law in the wrong direction. It is no mark of a civilised country or sensitive and sensible legislation for us to proceed in the way in which the Government are doing. Although there will be some constriction, we will countenance it only if a duty is placed on local authorities to provide for a need that has been recognised for decades, if not for centuries, and if they are given the resources to do so.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): First, I must respond to the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell).
It is important to remember that clause 67 is discretionary. It gives local authorities discretion and it would be for a responsible local authority to decide whether to exercise its powers. It is conceivable that a responsible local authority, acting reasonably, might wish to use its powers in circumstances that are not specified in my hon. Friend's amendments. For example, an unauthorised encampment on land adjacent to a main road might cause a serious traffic hazard or serious nuisance to neighbouring landowners or the public. My hon. Friend's amendments unnecessarily limit the discretion that we propose to give to local authorities.
It is also important to bear in mind the fact that clauses 67 and 68 relate to all unauthorised campers and not only to gipsies. New age travellers adopt their life style as a matter of choice. They cannot possibly be described as true nomads, or in the somewhat romantic terms in which gipsies have been described this evening. Furthermore, new age travellers appear to have no wish to establish themselves or reside on authorised sites, but simply want to roam through the countryside unchecked. My hon. Friend's amendments would accord them a degree of protection under the law that they do not have at present
and certainly do not deserve.
I understand the concern expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West that local authorities should not be allowed to use the powers provided in the Bill to harass and confound families who have nowhere to turn. The powers that we propose are not intended to give authorities such licence; nor is it reasonable to suspect that they will make indiscriminate use of the powers. Local authorities have wide experience in dealing tolerantly with unauthorised camping. The powers that we propose to give them are discretionary and we expect them to continue to act humanely and sensibly. We have issued advice, which makes it clear that authorities should not evict gipsies needlessly and we intend to re-issue and reaffirm that advice when the new provisions come into force.
I must draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West to the fact that in that advice we make it clear that local authorities should consider emergency stopping places and that, where such places are identified, steps should be taken to arrange regular refuse collection and that, as soon as possible, they should provide other facilities, such as water supply and sanitation. I think that that meets the concerns that were expressed by my hon. Friend.
With regard to amendment No. 135, I should like to make it clear that clause 67 already provides a range of statutory defences for persons against whom proceedings are brought. Specifically, mechanical breakdown, illness and other immediate emergencies are all grounds on which a traveller may claim that his unlawful entry on to land was unavoidable. I hope that my hon. Friend will feel that the action that we are taking will meet his concerns. It is certainly not intended that people should be harassed from pillar to post.
10.15 pm
As was made clear by the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser), amendment No. 272 seeks to secure 100 per cent. grant for the capital costs of site provision for a further five years after the repeal of part II of the Caravan Sites Act 1968. I remind the House that the 100 per cent. grant was introduced way back in 1978 in response to a recommendation of Sir John Cripps, in his report of 1976, that such grant should be introduced for just five years for the purpose of stimulating local authority site provisions. Instead, we have maintained the 100 per cent. grant for 14 years—far longer than was envisaged by Cripps—and local authorities have come to depend wholly on it to fund any new proposal. I do not think there is any other case of a grant of 100 per cent. This is a consequence not foreseen by Cripps and certainly not envisaged by Parliament.
Although more than £87 million has been expended since 1978, local authority site provision has failed to keep pace with the growing demand for sites. The result is that the level of unauthorised camping has hardly fallen at all throughout the period during which the grant has been available.
The simple truth is that the 1968 Act has failed and that it is incumbent on the House, on behalf of local communities plagued by unauthorised camping and gipsy families still without decent accommodation, to find a realistic and fair solution to this long-standing problem. We believe that our proposals offer the best way forward towards such a solution, and I urge the House to resist the amendments.

Sir David Mitchell: In view of my hon. Friend's response—in particular, his announcement that he will issue a new circular covering the items he mentioned to the House—I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 72

OFFENCES RELATING TO TERRORISM

Mr. Fraser: I beg to move amendment No. 224, in page 57, line 41, leave out from 'possession' to 'for' in line 43.

Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to consider amendment No. 225, in page 57, line 41, leave out 'a reasonable suspicion' and insert 'the reasonable conclusion'.

Mr. Fraser: Clause 72 creates a new offence. These amendments are alternatives: the Government are free to choose one or the other. The offence that is being created is having an article in one's possession for a purpose connected with the commission, preparation or instigation of an act of terrorism to which the clause applies. No hon. Member wants a situation in which people go around in possession of articles intended for purposes of terrorism. The objection to the way in which the offence is formulated lies in the words
in circumstances giving rise to a reasonable suspicion that the article is in his possession for a purpose connected with the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism".
Unfortunately, the nature of the offence being created does not derive from the defendant's actually having an article in his possession for the purposes of terrorism. It might be a gun, a detonator or some other explosive device, all of which would normally be articles illegally possessed. On the other hand, it might be a perfectly lawful object,


such as binoculars, a camera, a notebook, a mobile telephone or a measuring tape. The substance of the offence is not the possession of the article but the fact that the possession gives rise to reasonable suspicion.
Of course we want to strengthen the law against terrorists, but here we are creating sus law that is quite literally so. The problem about sus laws is that the issue becomes not what the defendant did or intended to do but what a police officer or some other person suspected he had done or intended to do. So, ultimately, the offence is literally a matter of conjecture and suspicion.
Theft is not defined as "he steals who takes and carries away something capable of being stolen, giving rise to the suspicion that the defendant intended to deprive the owner of the item". We do not define the offence of supplying dangerous drugs as "being in possession of drugs giving rise to a reasonable suspicion that they were intended for supply". And we do not define grievous bodily harm as "wounding somebody under circumstances that give rise to reasonable suspicion that somebody has been done harm".
The Government are free to choose between the two amendments as they wish. They create an objective test of whether the person was in possession of an article with a view to terrorist activity or in circumstances that give rise to a reasonable conclusion. It will then be left to the jury to reach an appropriate decision on whether an offence has been committed.
The problems with the formulation in the clause are, first, it is not good law; secondly, the innocent risk being convicted; and, thirdly and also important, it may give rise to a guilty person being convicted and then becoming a martyr. That does not fight terrorism but gives terrorism a chance of guilty martyrs who can then attack the law under which they were convicted.
If we are to unite against terrorism and create a new offence, let us do it in a sensible, acceptable way that will not lead to innocent people being convicted or guilty people having alibis in the eyes of their followers.

Mr. Maclean: Clause 72 makes it an offence, under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989, for a person to have any article in his or her possession in circumstances that give rise to reasonable suspicion that the article is in his or her possession for a purpose connected with the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism. It will be a defence for the person to prove that the article is not in his or her possession for such a purpose.
That follows the terms of the offence as it already exists in Northern Ireland under section 30 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991. Amendment No. 224 would require the prosecution to show beyond reasonable doubt that the article was in the person's possession for a terrorist purpose. That would effectively render the offence unworkable as it might often prove impossible for the prosecution to establish that.
For that reason, the present wording of the offence requires the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that, from the combination of the nature of the article, the circumstances of its possession and the statements of the accused, a terrorist purpose in the possession of the article can be suspected. If such a suspicion is established, it is not unreasonable then to require the accused to explain his or her possession of the article or to show that he or she was not in possession of it. I emphasise that it will not be the

simple possession of the article but its possession in circumstances that give rise to a reasonable of its connection with terrorism that will constitute the offence.
Amendment No. 225 would make no practical difference to the test of guilt in that offence. Unlike the concept of reasonable suspicion, the concept of reasonable conclusion is not commonly used in criminal law and its use here would give rise to uncertainty about the proper meaning of the provision.
I understand the concern of the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser). I give him credit for his genuine concern and for seeking, in his view, to make the test fairer and safer. But the test in the new offence is fair and should remain. Despite his reasonable and courteous attempt, the route that he proposes would not work and would undermine the clause. That was not his intention, but I am sorry that I cannot accept his amendments.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 74

INDECENT PSEUDO-PHOTOGRAPHS OF CHILDREN

Amendments made: No. 182, in page 62, line 36, leave out 'which, being stored on a computer disc or by other electronic means,' and insert
'stored on a computer disc or by other electronic means which'

No. 131, in page 62, line 38, at end insert—
'( ) in subsection(3)—

(a) in paragraph (a), for the words "3 months" there shall be substituted the words "6 months"; and
(b) in paragraph (b), for the words "two years" there shall be substituted the words "3 years";'. No. 183, in page 62, line 45, leave out 'which, being stoned electronically,' and insert

'stored on a computer disc or by other electronic means which'.

No. 132, in page 63, line 10, leave out '3' and insert '6'.

No. 84, in page 63, line 14, at end insert—
'(8) The Protection of Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 shall be amended as provided in subsections (9) and (10) below.
(9) In Article 2 (interpretation)—

(a) in paragraph (2)—

(i) in the definition of "child", after "child" there shall be inserted the words "subject to paragraph (3)(c)";
(ii) for the definition of "photograph" there shall be substituted the following definitions—

""indecent pseudo-photograph" includes—

(a) a copy of an indecent pseudo-photograph; and
(b) data stored on a computer disc or by other electronic means which is capable of conversion into a pseudo-photograph;

"photograph" includes—

(a) the negative as well as the positive version; and
(b) data stored on a computer disc or by other electronic means which is capable of conversion into a photograph;

"pseudo-photograph" means an image, whether made by computer-graphics or otherwise

howsoever, which appears to be a photograph;"

(b) in paragraph (3)—

(i) in sub-paragraph (a), after the word "photograph" there shall be inserted the words "or pseudo-photograph";
(ii) in sub-paragraph (b), at the end, there shall be inserted the words "and so as respects pseudo-photographs; and";
(iii) after sub-paragraph (b) there shall be inserted the following sub-paragraph—

"(c) if the impression conveyed by a pseudo-photograph is that the person shown is a child, the pseudo-photograph shall be treated as showing a child and so shall a pseudo-photograph where the predominant impression


conveyed is that the person shown is a child notwithstanding that some of the physical characteristics shown are those of an adult.".

(10) In Article 3 (which, for Northern Ireland, penalises the taking and distribution of indecent photographs of children and related acts)—

(a) in sub-paragraph (a) of paragraph (1)—

(i) after the word "taken" there shall be inserted the words "or to make";
(ii) after the word "photograph" there shall be inserted the words "or pseudo-photograph";

(b) in sub-paragraphs (b),(c) and (d) of paragraph (1), after the word "photographs" there shall be inserted the words "or pseudo-photographs";
(c) in sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) of paragraph (3), after the word "photographs" there shall be inserted the words "or pseudo-photographs".

(11) Article 15 of the Criminal Justice (Evidence, etc.) (Northern Ireland) Order 1988 (which, for Northern Ireland, penalises the possession of indecent photographs of children) shall be amended as follows—

(a) in paragraph (1), after the word "photograph" there shall be inserted the words "or pseudo-photograph" and the words from "(meaning" to "16)" shall be omitted;
(b) in sub-paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of paragraph (2), after the word "photograph" there shall be inserted the words "or pseudo-photograph"; and
(c) in paragraph (6), the reference to the coming into operation of that Article shall be construed, for the purposes of the amendments made by this subsection, as a reference to the coming into force of this subsection.'.-[Mr. Maclean.]

Clause 75

ARRESTABLE OFFENCES TO INCLUDE CERTAIN OFFENCES RELATING TO OBSCENITY OR INDECENCY

Amendments made: No. 85, in page 63, line 30, at end insert

'(4) The Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 shall be amended as provided in subsections (5) and (6) below.

(5) In Article 26(2) (arrestable offences), after sub-paragraph (e), there shall be inserted the following sub-paragraph—
(f) an offence under Article 3 of the Protection of Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 (indecent photographs and pseudo-photographs of children).".

(6) At the end of Part II of Schedule 5 (serious arrestable offences mentioned in Article 87(2)(b)) there shall be inserted the following paragraph—

"Protection of Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 (1978 N.I.17)

13. Article 3 (indecent photographs and pseudo-photographs of children).".'-[Mr. Maclean.]

Clause 76

INDECENT PHOTOGRAPHS OF CHILDREN: SENTENCE OF IMPRISONMENT

Amendments made: No. 86, in page 63, line 31, at beginning insert '(1)'.No. 87, in page 63, line 35, at end insert—
'(2) In Article 15(3) of the Criminal Justice (Evidence, etc.) (Northern Ireland) Order 1988 (which makes a person convicted in Northern Ireland of certain offences relating to indecent photographs of children liable to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale) there shall be inserted after the word "to" the words "imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or" and at the end the words ", or both".'.-[Mr. Maclean.]

Clause 78

OBSCENE, OFFENSIVE OR ANNOYING TELEPHONE CALLS

Amendments made: No. 293, in page 65, line 38, leave out 'three' and insert 'six'. No. 294, in page 65, line 38, leave out '4' and insert '5'. No. 295, in page 65, line 39, at end insert—
'( ) Subsection (1) above does not apply to an offence committed before this section comes into force.'-[Mr. Maclean.]

Clause 82

CONTRACTED OUT PARTS OF PRISONS

Amendments made: No. 371, in page 68, line 10, after 'him' insert
',or (if the contract so provides) by sub-contractors of his,'.

No. 372, in page 68, line 26, leave out 'to run it' and insert
'with the Secretary of State for the running of it'.

No. 373, in page 68, line 27, at end insert—
sub-contractor', in relation to a contracted out prison, means a person who has contracted with the contractor for the running of it or any part of it.'.-[Mr. Maclean.]

Clause 87

MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Amendments made: No. 374, in page 70, line 22, at beginning insert—

'( ) In subsection (5) of section 85 of the 1991 Act (officers of contracted out prisons), for the words "The contractor shall" there shall be substituted the words "The contractor and any sub-contractor of his shall each".

( ) In subsection (3)(b) of section 88 of that Act (intervention by the Secretary of State), for the words "the contractor shall" there shall be substituted the words "the contractor and any sub-contractor of his shall each".

( ) In subsection (5) of that section, after the words "the contractor," there shall be inserted the words "any sub-contractor of his,".'.

No. 375, in page 70, line 22, leave out 'the 1991 Act' and insert 'that Act'. No. 376, in page 71, line 2, leave out `and'.-[Mr. Maclean.]

No. 377, in page 71, line 7, at end insert 'and
(d) after the definition of "prisoner escort arrangements" there shall be inserted the following definition—
'sub-contractor' has the meaning given by section 84(2) above.".'.-[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

Mr. John McFall: I beg to move amendment No. 221, in page 71, leave out from end of line 32 to end of line 37 on page 80.
The amendment would remove clauses 88 to 103 from the Bill. The Government have decided to change in a piecemeal way the criminal justice system in Scotland by introducing major changes to the prison system—not least the possibility of privatisation—without any pilot projects taking place.
Tonight, the Minister refused the amendment put forward by the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) which would have allowed pilot projects to take place. We see tonight the possibility that privatisation will take place wholesale in the Scottish prison system.
The Scottish Prison Officers Association, like its brother organisation in England and Wales, feels aggrieved at the unilateral action which the Government have taken regarding its future. It is an organisation with no political affiliations. It certainly could not be described as anything like a militant trade union—in fact, it has not had a national


strike for 55 years. More than 95 per cent. of industrial disputes have been settled and they have almost always been about staff safety and manning levels.
Yet the Government have decided to stop the prison officers taking industrial action by refusing them the right to strike. The pre-emptory way in which the Government are treating the prison officers is leading to increasing fear and tension within the Scottish prison system. I witnessed that personally only a few weeks ago when, along with five parliamentary colleagues, I visited Barlinnie prison in Glasgow. Many prison officers told us of their concerns. One officer, who had 16 years service and had seen the disruption to the Scottish prison system in the 1980s, with riots in Peterhead and elsewhere, said that there was not the same frustration and tension in the 1980s as exists in the prison system at present.
Yet the Government are going ahead with clause 92, which will contract out prisons, and clause 99, which will offer the opportunity of new prisons—not least the spectacle of floating prisons. The Government have never elaborated on what they mean by the concept of floating prisons and I should like the Minister to address that point tonight. Does the Minister mean disused oil rigs, as some people are suggesting? If so, how does that make for a humane environment for prisoners? The official Opposition's main objection to the Government's decision is that, in their piecemeal way, they are putting provisions into the Bill that will have major implications for Scotland, yet they have not addressed the problems that currently exist in the Scottish prison system.
10.30 pm
The Home Office has given a commitment to cease the degrading and inhumane practice of slopping out. think that the target date was 1996 which, perhaps, could be revised. The Minister of State, Home Office may be surprised to learn that the Secretary of State for Scotland has not uttered one word on a target date for ceasing slopping out in Scotland. There are 5,185 prison cells in Scotland, 44 per cent. of which—2,291—have no access to night sanitation. That means that more than 2,000 prisoners are locked up in their cells for 16 hours per day with no access to night sanitation. I have seen the supposed improvements that the Scottish Prison Service tried to introduce in Barlinnie by installing chemical toilets. That Government commitment has placed the prisoners in an even more degrading position and has caused evert more tension among both prisoners and prison staff in Barlinnie.
In Scotland, the figure of 44 per cent. of prison cells with no access to night sanitation compares unfavourably with the position in England and Wales, where the figure is only 12 per cent. In Dumfries prison, which houses young offenders, none of the 146 cells have access to night sanitation. In Perth, Peterhead and Polmont there are virtually no facilities. At Barlinnie prison, the inmates in 829 out of 833 prison cells slop out. Notwithstanding that Lord Justice Woolf, Judge Stephen Tumim and former Home Secretaries such as Lord Carr have called the practice inhumane and degrading, the Government and the Scottish Office remain mute on the subject. If they are to do anything, they should deal with those issues.
The Government should also address the problem of overcrowding. The population of Greenock prison is 52 per cent. above capacity, Edinburgh prison is 36 per cent. above capacity, Inverness is 28 per cent. above capacity and Barlinnie is 27 per cent. above capacity. Past practice

suggests that overcrowding causes disruption, brings the danger of riots and, more important, prevents a positive relationship between staff and inmates. But the Scottish Office is careering down the road of prison privatisation.
If the Minister looks across the Atlantic to America he will see that prison privatisation does not work. A recent study in the Journal of Criminal Justice considered the prison system in America from the criteria of cost effectiveness, treatment of employees, quality of service and public accountability. The American prison service did not obtain pass marks on any of those criteria. We should not look to the United States for examples because in the US 1.25 million people are in prison—proportionately, five times the number of prisoners in the United Kingdom. If we had the same proportion of people in prison in the United Kingdom, our prison population would be 250,000.
We should not adopt the American system; we have nothing to learn from it. We should look to our European partners and to countries such as Denmark, where there is an extensive family support system and a much-reduced prison population.
We require, and Labour demands, a disciplined, humane and reforming prison system. We consider privatisation—prison privatisation—to be wrong, both in principle and in practice. First, those who are sentenced to imprisonment by the state should be deprived of their liberty by those who are accountable to the state, not to private shareholders. Secondly, privatising prisons diverts us from the proper priority of improving our Prison Service.
The Government set standards for running private prisons, and they should concentrate on maintaining them in all prisons—not just the small number that are privately run. A Labour Government would bring the Scottish prison system back within the state at the earliest opportunity. The Government should abandon their fixation with privatisation and deal with the problems that manifestly exist in the Scottish prison system. In that spirit, the official Opposition commend the amendment.

Mrs. Ewing: In supporting amendment No. 221, I wish to speak also to my amendments Nos. 321 and 323 to 329. I place on record my special interest, in that my elder brother was a member of the Scottish Prison Service, having recently retired from Polymont training college, and my nephew works in the service as an officer.
I am concerned about the service's future. I acknowledge the importance of its qualified, trained members. In the context of the Bill, we are seeing privatisation of the Prison Service by stealth. That is wrong. Society has a huge responsibility to recognise the importance of qualified and trained Prison Service staff.
I want to put a number of questions to the Minister. If he cannot answer them now, perhaps he will place answers in the Library or give them in a letter. How many prison officers have taken early retirement as a result of the Government proposals introduced during the progress of the Bill? What are they being offered? How many will receive a pension plan and redundancy payment? How will that reduction in trained and qualified prison officers compare with the number seeking to be recruited into the Scottish Prison Service? What is the current recruitment rate, by comparison with the number of staff in their late 40s or early 50s who are retiring early?


How much are the Government spending in that context? How much money are they putting on the table to ensure that men and women leave the Prison Service as early as possible?
What is the Government's ultimate goal? Do they plan to privatise the Scottish Prison Service? Is this just the beginning of privatisation? Is it the Government's ultimate intention to farm out the service to people who have no responsibility, accountability or reason to answer to elected representatives at local government or parliamentary level? What do the Government have in mind?
The fundamental principle underpinning the issue is that if the state decides to pass sentence on an individual for committing a crime, it has responsibility for ensuring that that sentence is served under the auspices of the state. Does anyone believe that that concept can be privatised by individuals who are motivated by profit? I hope that the Minister will address that principle as well as the other issues.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am glad to respond to the questions that have been asked by hon. Members.
The hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) asked about floating prisons. I should mention that clause 99 contains a provision that would allow a prison to be situated on water. That is purely a contingency measure in case of pressure on accommodation. We have no plans to use that provision in the foreseeable future.
The hon. Gentleman asked about overcrowding at Greenock. I am glad to say that we plan a 50-cell accommodation block, subject to the availability of resources, which should alleviate the problem of sharing accommodation there.
The hon. Gentleman made a powerful plea for the ending of the degrading practice of slopping out. The prison survey published in 1992 showed that prisoners attached more importance to improving facilities for family contact, and we believe that that is an important objective, although we shall, of course, do our best to get more integral sanitation as soon as we can.
With regard to these provisions, hon. Members argued that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State should not have powers to market test prisoner escorting and custody. We believe that the Scottish Prison Service faces some major challenges in the years ahead if it is to keep in secure custody all those committed by the courts while maintaining the standards of humanity and propriety that the public have a right to expect. Clauses 88 to 103 will assist the service in that task.
We see no difficulty in the principle of private sector involvement. If a private contractor wins, he will have to meet the standards laid down in the contract. His performance will be carefully monitored, and the Secretary of State for Scotland will remain accountable to Parliament for the whole prison service.
The hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) wanted to know whether this would lead to redundancies. Redundancies are by no means an inevitable consequence of market testing. Areas that have already been market tested include those involved in the storage and distribution services from central stores, Fauldhouse, and the works and maintenance functions in four prisons. In four cases, the in-house Prison Service team was successful. However, the works contract at Barlinnie,

Glasgow, was awarded to AMEC Construction (Scotland) Ltd. As a result, £4.5 million was saved, which could then be deployed for other pressing purposes.

Mr. Michael Connarty: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. As he knows, Polmont young offenders institution is in my constituency. The concern there is about teamwork. A young person can be moved from a criminal life into a non-recidivist position, but it is all about teamwork. The concern of those officers is that the team will be broken up because of the market forces. Has the Minister considered exempting young offenders institutions from this terrible Bill?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: No detailed decisions have been taken at this point. The considerations that the hon. Gentleman mentioned about teamwork will be taken into account. The first step is, of course, to seek the powers in the Bill. I make the point again that in-house teams frequently win. If they perform according to the details of the specification, everybody benefits, as they provide value for money for the public.

Mrs. Ewing: rose—

Mr. Tim Devlin: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I give way to the hon. Lady, as she has made a speech already.

Mrs. Ewing: The Minister mentioned market testing and the savings expected. Will he set against that the important aspect of ensuring that those in charge of people in prison are qualified and trained effectively? Does he not see the dilemma in saving money against the principles of ensuring that there is that safety and regulation?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Lady is right. These considerations must be properly taken into account in any tender specification put forward. I stress to the House that no less than £154 million was spent in 1993-94 on prisons in Scotland. We believe that we have a duty to get the best possible service and value for money for the taxpayer. As I mentioned earlier, the English experience has shown that market testing of prisons can be a catalyst for improving standards for prisoners, and value for money for the taxpayer. We expect the same to happen in Scotland and are engaged now on an ambitious programme of change and modernisation. There is no reason why the Scottish Prison Service should not meet the challenge of competition. In-house teams will be encouraged to bid and there is no reason why they should not win on merit.
We believe that contracting out prisoner escorting also holds out the possibility of achieving better value for money all round. For prison officers, it means that their skills can be used to extend the opportunities available to prisoners to deal with their offending behaviour and prepare themselves for release. There is now a proven track record of market testing prisoner escorting and custody arrangements in England and Wales with clear improvements in cost-effectiveness, whether contracts are awarded to the private sector or the in-house team. It is only right that there should be no barriers to Scotland participating in this process. I therefore recommend that the House reject the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 248, Noes 294.

Division No. 205]
[10.44pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Fisher, Mark


Adams, Mrs Irene
Flynn, Paul


Ainger, Nick
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Foster, Don (Bath)


Allen, Graham
Foulkes, George


Alton, David
Fraser, John


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Fyfe, Maria


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Galbraith, Sam


Armstrong, Hilary
Galloway, George


Ashton, Joe
Gapes, Mike


Austin-Walker, John
Garrett, John


Barnes, Harry
George, Bruce


Barron, Kevin
Gerrard, Neil


Battle, John
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Bayley, Hugh
Godsiff, Roger


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Golding, Mrs Llin


Bell, Stuart
Gordon, Mildred


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Graham, Thomas


Bennett, Andrew F.
Grant, Bernle (Tottenham)


Benton, Joe
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Bermingham, Gerald
Grocott, Bruce


Berry, Roger
Gunnell, John


Betts, Clive
Hain, Peter


Blair, Tony
Hall, Mike


Boateng, Paul
Hanson, David


Bradley, Keith
Harvey, Nick


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Heppell, John


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Hinchliffe, David


Burden, Richard
Hoey, Kate


Byers, Stephen
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Caborn, Richard
Home Robertson, John


Callaghan, Jim
Hood, Jimmy


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Hoon, Geoffrey


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Hoyle, Doug


Cann, Jamie
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Clapham, Michael
Hutton, John


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Illsley, Eric


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Clelland, David
Jamieson, David


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Janner, Greville


Coffey, Ann
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Corbett, Robin
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Corston, Ms Jean
Jowell, Tessa


Cousins, Jim
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Cox, Tom
Keen, Alan


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Khabra, Piara S.


Dafis, Cynog
Kilfoyle, Peter


Dalyell, Tam
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)


Darling, Alistair
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Davidson, Ian
Lewis, Terry


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Livingstone, Ken


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Llwyd, Elfyn


Denham, John
Loyden, Eddie


Dixon, Don
McAllion, John


Dobson, Frank
McAvoy, Thomas


Donohoe, Brian H.
McCartney, Ian


Dowd, Jim
Macdonald, Calum


Dunnachie, Jimmy
McKelvey, William


Eagle, Ms Angela
Mackinlay, Andrew


Enright, Derek
McLeish, Henry


Etherington, Bill
Maclennan, Robert


Evans, John (St Helens N)
McWilliam, John


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Madden, Max


Faulds, Andrew
Maddock, Mrs Diana


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Mahon, Alice





Mandelson, Peter
Rowlands, Ted


Marek, Dr John
Ruddock, Joan


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Sedgemore, Brian


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Sheerman, Barry


Martlew, Eric
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Maxton, John
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Meacher, Michael
Short, Clare


Meale, Alan
Simpson, Alan


Michael, Alun
Skinner, Dennis


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Milburn, Alan
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Miller, Andrew
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Soley, Clive


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Spearing, Nigel


Morley, Elliot
Spellar, John


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Mudie, George
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Mullin, Chris
Steinberg, Gerry


Murphy, Paul
Stevenson, George


O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)
Stott, Roger


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Strang, Dr. Gavin


O'Hara, Edward
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Oliner, William
Turner, Dennis


O'Neill, Martin
Tyler, Paul


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Vaz, Keith


Parry, Robert
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Patchett, Terry
Wallace, James


Pendry, Tom
Walley, Joan


Pickthall, Colin
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Pike, Peter L.
Wareing, Robert N


Pope, Greg
Watson, Mike


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Welsh, Andrew


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)
Wicks, Malcolm


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Wigley, Dafydd


Primarolo, Dawn
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Purchase, Ken
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Quin, Ms Joyce
Wilson, Brian


Radice, Giles
Winnick, David


Randall, Stuart
Wise, Audrey


Raynsford, Nick
Worthington, Tony


Reid, Dr John
Wray, Jimmy


Rendel, David
Wright, Dr Tony


Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)



Roche, Mrs. Barbara
Tellers for the Ayes:


Rogers, Allan
Mr. Gordon McMaster and


Rooker, Jeff
Mr. Michael Connarty.


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)



NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Bowis, John


Aitken, Jonathan
Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes


Alexander, Richard
Brandreth, Gyles


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Brazier, Julian


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Bright, Graham


Amess, David
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Arbuthnot, James
Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Browning, Mrs. Angela


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)


Ashby, David
Budgen, Nicholas


Atkins, Robert
Burns, Simon


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Burt, Alistair


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Carlisle, John (Luton North)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Carrington, Matthew


Baldry, Tony
Carttiss, Michael


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Cash, William


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Churchill, Mr


Bates, Michael
Clappison, James


Batiste, Spencer
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Bellingham, Henry
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)


Bendell, Vivian
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Beresford, Sir Paul
Coe, Sebastian


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Colvin, Michael


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Congdon, David


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Conway, Derek


Booth, Hartley
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Boswell, Tim
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Couchman, James


Bowden, Andrew
Cran, James






Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Hunter, Andrew


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Jack, Michael


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jenkin, Bernard


Day, Stephen
Jessel, Toby


Deva, Nil Joseph
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Devlin, Tim
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Dover, Den
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Duncan, Alan
Key, Robert


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Kilfedder, Sir James


Dunn, Bob
King, Rt Hon Tom


Dykes, Hugh
Kirkhope, Timothy


Eggar, Tim
Knapman, Roger


Elletson, Harold
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Knox, Sir David


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Evennett, David
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Faber, David
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Fabricant, Michael
Legg, Barry


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Leigh, Edward


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Fishburn, Dudley
Lidington, David


Forman, Nigel
Lightbown, David


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)


Forth, Eric
Lord, Michael


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Luff, Peter


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Maclean, David


French, Douglas
McLoughlin, Patrick


Gale, Roger
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Gallie, Phil
Madel, Sir David


Gardiner, Sir George
Maitland, Lady Olga


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Malone, Gerald


Garnier, Edward
Mans, Keith


Gill, Christopher
Marland, Paul


Gillen, Cheryl
Marlow, Tony


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Mates, Michael


Gorst, John
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Merchant, Piers


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Mills, Iain


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Grylls, Sir Michael
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Moate, Sir Roger


Hague, William
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Monro, Sir Hector


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hampson, Dr Keith
Moss, Malcolm


Hanley, Jeremy
Needham, Richard


Hannam, Sir John
Nelson, Anthony


Hargreaves, Andrew
Neubert, Sir Michael


Harris, David
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Haselhurst, Alan
Nicholls, Patrick


Hawkins, Nick
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hawksley, Warren
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hayes, Jerry
Norris, Steve


Heald, Oliver
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hendry, Charles
Ottaway, Richard


Hicks, Robert
Page, Richard


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.
Paice, James


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Patnick, Irvine


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Horam, John
Pawsey, James


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Pickles, Eric


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Redwood, RI Hon John


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim





Richards, Rod
Temple-Morris, Peter


Riddick, Graham
Thomason, Roy


Robathan, Andrew
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Thumham, Peter


Ross, William (E Londonderry)
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Tracey, Richard


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Tredinnick, David


Sackville, Tom
Trend, Michael


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Trotter, Neville


Shaw, David (Dover)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Viggers, Peter


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Shersby, Michael
Walden, George


Sims, Roger
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Waller, Gary


Soames, Nicholas
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Speed, Sir Keith
Watts, John


Spencer, Sir Derek
Wells, Bowen


Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Whitney, Ray


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Whittingdale, John


Spink, Dr Robert
Widdecombe, Ann


Spring, Richard
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Sproat, Iain
Wilkinson, John


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Willetts, David


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Wilshire, David


Steen, Anthony
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Stephen, Michael
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Stewart, Allan
Wolfson, Mark


Streeter, Gary
Wood, Timothy


Sumberg, David
Yeo, Tim


Sweeney, Walter
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Sykes, John



Tapsell, Sir Peter
Tellers for the Noes:


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Mr. Sydney Chapman and


Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)
Mr. Andrew MacKay.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Clause 90

POWERS AND DUTIES OF PRISONER CUSTODY OFFICERS PERFORMING ESCORT FUNCTIONS

Amendment made: No. 137, in page 73, line 19, leave out 'hat' and insert 'headgear'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 93

OFFICERS OF CONTRACTED OUT PRISONS

Amendment made: No. 138, in page 75, line 19, at end insert—
'(6) Every contracted out prison shall have a medical officer, who shall be a registered medical practitioner appointed by the contractor.'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 94

POWERS AND DUTIES OF PRISONER CUSTODY OFFICERS EMPLOYED AT CONTRACTED OUT PRISONS

Amendment made: No. 139, in page 75, line 29, leave out 'hat' and insert 'headgear'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 96

CONSEQUENTIAL MODIFICATIONS OF 1989 ACT, PRISON RULES AND DIRECTIONS

Amendments made: No. 140, in page 76, leave out lines 13 to 15 and insert—

'(2) In section 3 of the 1989 Act (general superintendence of prisons)—

(a) in subsection (1), the words from "who shall appoint" to the end shall be omitted; and
(b) subsection (3) shall not apply.'.

No. 141, in page 76, line 18, leave out first 'and'.

No. 142, in page 76, line 18, at end insert
',41(4) (detention of person suspected of bringing prohibited article into prison) and 41B(3) (testing prisoners for drugs)'.

No. 143, in page 76, line 24, leave out 'and 41(3) (prohibited articles)' and insert
',41(3), (4), (6) and (8) (detention of person suspected of bringing prohibited article into prison) and 41B(1) (testing prisoners for drugs)'.

No. 144, in page 76, leave out line 32 and insert—
'(6) Sections 37 (discontinuance of prison), 41(2A) and (2B) (power to search for prohibited articles) and 41A (powers of search by authorised employees) of that Act shall not apply.'.

—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 98

CONTRACTED OUT FUNCTIONS AT DIRECTLY MANAGED PRISONS

Amendments made: No. 145, in page 78, line 1, after '41(3)', insert ', (4), (6) and (8)'.

No. 146, in page 78, line 3, leave out
'(5) Any reference in subsections (1) to (3) above' and insert—
'(4A) Section 41(2A) and (2B) of the 1989 Act (search of person suspected of bringing prohibited article into prison) shall not apply in relation to a prisoner custody officer performing contracted out functions at a directly managed prison.
(5) Any reference in the foregoing provisions of this section'.

—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 112

SERVICE IN ENGLAND AND WALES AND NORTHERN IRELAND

Mr. Peter Lloyd: I beg to move amendment No. 216, in page 85, line 7, at end insert—

'(5) Subsection (6) below shall apply where—

(a) the certificate of independence of any organisation has been cancelled, at any time before the passing of this Act, in consequence of the removal of the name of that organisation from a list of trade unions kept under provisions of the relevant employment legislation; but
(b) it appears to the Certification Officer that the organisation would have remained on the list, and that the certificate would have remained in force, had that legislation had effect at and after that time in accordance with subsection (1) above.

(6) Where this subsection applies—

(a) the Certification Officer shall restore the name to the list and delete from his records any entry relating to the cancellation of the certificate;
(b) the removal of the name from the list, the making of the deleted entry and the cancellation of the certificate shall be deemed never to have occurred; and
(c) the organisation shall accordingly be deemed, for the purposes for which it is treated by virtue of subsection (4) above as having been a trade union, to have been independent throughout the period between the cancellation of the certificate and the deletion of the entry relating to that cancellation.'.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 281, in clause 113, page 85, line 11, after 'discipline', insert
'otherwise than by an act in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute to which the Secretary of State is a party being a Minister falling within section 244(2) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.'.
No. 280, in page 85, line 18, at end insert—
'(3A) Where the relevant act or breach of duty under subsection (1) or subsection (3) above is done or committed as the case may be in contemplation of a trade dispute, the court shall

not entertain an action for damages and the remedies available to the Secretary of State or other plaintiff shall be a declaration or an injunction.'.
Government amendment No. 217.
Amendment No. 279, in page 85, leave out lines 40 to 42.
Government amendments Nos. 218 and 219.

11 pm

Mr. Lloyd: In Standing Committee, my hon. Friend the Minister undertook to consider further the possible effect of the prohibition on inducing industrial action in clause 113 on the eligibility of the unions concerned to hold a certificate of independence under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. We have always made it clear that we want independent, effective and responsible trade unions in the Prison Service and that there should be no bar to the ability of unions which represent prison staff to be granted certificates of independence provided that the usual criteria are met. Certification grants significant rights and we want the prison staff to have them.
However, on further investigation, it appeared that there was a risk that, as matters stand, the certification officer might reach the conclusion that clause 113 would limit the unions' freedom of action in a way that would call into question their entitlement to a certificate of independence. Amendment No. 217 eliminates that risk by requiring the certification officer to disregard clause 113 when deciding whether a union is entitled to a certificate of independence.
We also needed to consider the possibility that, because of the anomalous position under existing law, as declared in the rulings on the November injunctions, the certification officer may deem it necessary to delist the unions concerned and cancel their existing certificates of independence before the Bill comes into force. Amendment No. 216 deals with that situation by retrospectively overruling any such delisting or cancellation of a certificate. Therefore, I hope that the House will agree that the amendments honour the undertaking that my hon. Friend gave in Committee and I commend them to the House on that basis.

Mr. Michael: I am grateful to the Minister for responding to some of the fears that were expressed in Committee. It is quite clear, as we stressed at that stage, that an extremely untidy situation has arisen due to a rather opportunistic approach by the Government, which has left the prison officers, the Prison Governors Association and the unions involved in an extremely difficult position. Putting things right over registration is not sufficient.
I especially draw to the attention of the House amendment No. 281, which restores some fairness. The amendment effectively restores the right to take most industrial action. Without the amendment, representatives of prison officers would not enjoy any freedom to engage in collective action. The amendment says that industrial action is legal where the trade dispute is with the Secretary of State. That makes disputes between a union and the Prison Service legal, and with the addition of section 244(2) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, it makes it clear that, although the Secretary of State is not the direct employer, the dispute is still with him.
Section 244(2) of that Act goes on to say that the dispute is a valid one where a matter has been considered by a joint


body—set up by clause 114—and would include discussions on pay and conditions, or is valid where it cannot be settled by negotiation. That covers other eventualities. The Bill makes the Secretary of State responsible for pay, but gives prison officers no negotiating rights. That is the heart of our objection to the unamended clauses. It gives the prison officers nothing in return.
It could be argued that when there are people who have special responsibilities—the police are in such a category and it may be argued that prison officers are as well—and therefore there are difficulties about taking specific forms of disruptive industrial action, there should be a guarantee against that. If that is desired, such people should be given something in return—for example, a right that guarantees fairness in any negotiations. The mechanism that has avoided disputes in the fire service is precisely such a case in point. At present—the Bill responds to a muddied situation that arose during the latter part of 1993—there is no such balance in the Bill.
Clause 112, in tandem with clause 114, does not guarantee a fair negotiating process for pay and conditions. Prison officers will no longer have any real power in determining their pay and conditions. The net effect of the amendment would be to force the Secretary of State to be a registered party in any dispute; it would not allow him to abdicate responsibility to the Prison Service and thus wash his hands of any dispute matters. It is extremely questionable whether the end result of the Government's amendment is legitimate in a variety ways as it stands. We urge the Government to accept our amendment. If they then wish to negotiate different arrangements that would guarantee continuity of management as well as fairness for those employed in the Prison Service, that is the way forward that they should take.
Earlier, we were concerned to hear the comments—made not only by the Prison Officers Association but by the Prison Governors Association—about the dangers in our prisons. We were also concerned about the number of occasions on which they made responsible comments about not only their own conditions but the adequacy of the Prison Service and the public interest. We are worried that, despite the amendment introduced by the Minister, there will still be constraints on that. It would not be in the public interest—never mind in the interest of those who serve in the Prison Service—for the Bill to proceed unamended. In order to be brief, I shall commend amendment No. 281. If it is not accepted by the Government, I call on my hon. Friends, and any hon. Members who want to see fairness between the employees and the Prison Service, to support the amendment in the Lobby.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Anyone who heard the Minister's speech introducing the amendments —we recognise that the speech was a concession to concerns expressed in Committee—will realise full well why prison officers feel so resentful about so many features of the Bill. The Minister said that the Government have so removed the normal trade union powers of the Prison Officers Association, and, indeed, the Prison Governors Association, that they risk not being recognised as a trade union at all. Therefore, tortuous procedures must be introduced in the Bill—in one case, retrospectively—to

restore the formal status of the trade union to an organisation that has been deprived of powers that it has had for many years.
I am not in favour of prison officers taking what is sometimes euphemistically called industrial action. Industrial action is a bad idea, and on many occasions I have put that case to prison officers. On many occasions, I have found ready agreement from them because they do not approve of it either. It is not in any sense a normal part of bargaining or negotiating for prison officers. If the powers, together with the other features of the Bill which they resent so much, were removed in such a way, it would be damaging to moral in the Prison Service, and no return is being offered by the Government.
Other features of the Bill assume that prison officers will come to the rescue when chaos arises in privatised prisons or privatised escort services, or take for granted the willingness and commitment of prison officers, although their traditional negotiating rights are removed without any alternative being offered. The way in which the Minister introduced the amendments—this was underlined by his words that the Government have stripped trade union rights from prison officers and had to go through a face-saving procedure to restore at least the minimum recognition to their organisation—is a mark of the unreasonable treatment of prison officers on whom we depend to contain extremely violent, extremely badly behaved and, in some cases, dangerous prisoners. Rather than taking that work for granted, we should recognise more properly the contribution that prison officers make to our society and not be quite so ready to remove the rights that they have traditionally enjoyed.

Mr. Doug Hoyle: I rise to support my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) and the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and to say that I hope that there will be support for amendment No. 281. Here we have a highly responsible trade union that has not taken national action in 55 years. I wonder why the Government are being so vindictive towards it, stripping away the rights of people who have acted extremely responsibly. I cannot do better than to quote the words of Lord Justice Woolf in his report on the Prison Service:
Members of the prison service as a whole, against heavy odds, have managed over a number of years to contain an almost impossible situation by showing immense dedication, courage and professionalism.
Yet their reward from the Government is to have their rights taken away. As has been said, we so often have to rely on them. They are a safety valve. They can tell us what is happening in prisons. The only time that they have taken action has been when they have been concerned about conditions and about safety in prisons. Yet that has been totally ignored by the Government. I ask that the Government think again on this matter and that hon. Members support amendment No. 281.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: As the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) made clear, the Opposition are seeking in various ways to weaken the protection that clause 113 provides for the Prison Service against prison officers being induced to withhold their services or commit breaches of discipline. In view of the serious consequences that such behaviour can have, the House will not be surprised to know that I do not accept the


amendments. The Prison Service is an essential part of the criminal justice system, and events in the service towards the end of last year—

Mr. Michael: May I come right to the kernel of this issue? There is no argument about the importance of the service, but what will the Minister give to balance those things that he is taking away and, in all fairness, to reward the prison officers?

Mr. Lloyd: I thought that it was probably a mistake to give way to the hon. Gentleman, as I will be coming to that point, since he made particular play of it.
Even the hon. Gentleman will agree that events in the Prison Service towards the end of last year demonstrated how intolerable the effects of disruption can be if key prison staff are involved in industrial action. The action that was planned by the Prison Officers Association for last November would have resulted in some 1,700 prisoners being locked out within only 72 hours. The prisoners would then have had to be placed in police cells, causing disruption to the police, the courts, prisoners, their families and legal advisers. In a short space of time, almost all the available police cell capacity would have been exhausted and the functioning of the criminal justice system as a whole seriously impaired.
Because the prisons and the prison officers who run them are so crucial to the criminal justice system, it is surely wrong for anyone to seek to bring them out on strike or to commit breaches of discipline.

Mrs. Ewing: Given the Minister's comments just now, is he rewarding the prison officers as a result of that by withdrawing from them their rights as individuals and as trade unionists? Will he also reward them by privatising many of the facilities about which he has spoken?

Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Lady had some debates with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland a little earlier. Although I should very much like to follow her down that track, because I believe that we are not privatising but bringing in contracted management to do exactly what the Home Secretary wants in the way of improving prisons, I think that the House would wish me to proceed with the amendments that are under debate. My strong impression in the aftermath of last November's abortive action, and I have visited some 40 prisons, was that many prison officers were relieved that they did not have to choose in the end between the union and what they saw as their duty as prison officers. The Government want good relations with the Prison Officers Association, and we have it in many of our prisons.
I hope that the national executive will follow the good example of so many of the union branches and agree to start discussions on a range of issues important to prison officers and to the service—not least a fair and effective new mechanism for settling pay.
11.15 pm
The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth was wrong to say that the Bill does not give prison officers anything. Clause 114 permits the establishment of pay determination arrangements negotiated with the POA. It is up to them to take up the invitation to discuss with us what arrangements they would like. I hope that the hon. Gentleman—I am sure that he has the best interests of the Prison Service and its officers in mind—will use his best offices to persuade the NEC to talk to the Prison Service

management. Many of the branches talk constructively and effectively, and with benefit, to the Prison Service and to the officers and governors.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 113

INDUCEMENTS TO WITHHOLD SERVICES OR TO INDISCIPLINE

Amendment proposed: No. 281, in page 85, line 11, after 'discipline', insert
'otherwise than by an act in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute to which the Secretary of State is a party being a Minister falling within section 244(2) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.'.—[Mr. Michael.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 243, Noes 290.

Division No. 206]
[11.16 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Davidson, Ian


Adams, Mrs Irene
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Ainger, Nick
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Allen, Graham
Denham, John


Alton, David
Dewar, Donald


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Dixon, Don


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Dobson, Frank


Armstrong, Hilary
Donohoe, Brian H.


Ashton, Joe
Dowd, Jim


Austin-Walker, John
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Barnes, Harry
Eagle, Ms Angela


Barron, Kevin
Enright, Derek


Battle, John
Etherington, Bill


Bayley, Hugh
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Bell, Stuart
Faulds, Andrew


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Bennett, Andrew F.
Fisher, Mark


Benton, Joe
Flynn, Paul


Bermingham, Gerald
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Berry, Roger
Foster, Don (Bath)


Betts, Clive
Foulkes, George


Blair, Tony
Fraser, John


Boateng, Paul
Fyfe, Maria


Bradley, Keith
Galbraith, Sam


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Galloway, George


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Gapes, Mike


Burden, Richard
Garrett, John


Caborn, Richard
George, Bruce


Callaghan, Jim
Gerrard, Neil


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Godsiff, Roger


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Gordon, Mildred


Cann, Jamie
Graham, Thomas


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clapham, Michael
Grocott, Bruce


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Gunnell, John


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hain, Peter


Clarke, Torn (Monklands W)
Hall, Mike


Clelland, David
Hanson, David


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Harvey, Nick


Coffey, Ann
Heppell, John


Connarty, Michael
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hinchliffe, David


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Hoey, Kate


Corbett, Robin
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Home Robertson, John


Corston, Ms Jean
Hood, Jimmy


Cousins, Jim
Hoon, Geoffrey


Cox, Tom
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Hoyle, Doug


Dafis, Cynog
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Dalyell, Tam
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Darling, Alistair
Hutton, John






Illsley, Eric
Parry, Robert


Adam, Adam
Patchett, Terry


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Pendry, Tom


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Pickthall, Colin


Jamieson, David
Pike, Peter L.


Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Pope, Greg


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Primarolo Dawn


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Purchase, Ken


Jowell, Tessa
Quin, Ms Joyce


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Radice, Giles


Keen, Alan
Raynsford, Nick


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Rendel, David


Khabra, Piara S.
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Kilfoyle, Peter
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Rogers, Allan


Lewis, Terry
Rooker, Jeff


Livingstone, Ken
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Rowlands, Ted


Llwyd, Elfyn
Ruddock, Joan


Loyden, Eddie
Sedgemore, Brian


McAllion, John
Sheerman, Bary


McAvoy, Thomas
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McCartney, Ian
Short, Clare


Macdonald, Calum
Simpson, Alan


McFall, John
Skinner, Dennis


McKelvey, William
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Mackinlay, Andrew
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


McLeish, Henry
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Maclennan, Robert
Soley, Clive


McMaster, Gordon
Spearing, Nigel


McNamara, Kevin
Spellar, John


McWilliam, John
Squire, Rachael (Dunfermline W)


Madden, Max
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Maddock, Mrs Diana
Steinberg, Gerry


Mahon, Alice
Stevenson, George


Mandelson, Peter
Stott, Roger


Marek, Dr John
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Turner, Dennis


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Tyler, Paul


Martlew, Eric
Vaz, Keith


Maxton, John
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Meacher, Michael
Wallace, James


Meale, Alan
Walley, Joan


Michael, Alun
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Wareing, Robert N


Milburn, Alan
Watson, Mike


Miller, Andrew
Welsh, Andrew


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Wicks, Malcolm


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Morgan, Rhodri
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Morley, Elliot
Wilson, Brian


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Winnick, David


Mowlam, Marjorie
Wise, Audrey


Mudie, George
Worthington, Tony


Mullin, Chris
Wray, Jimmy


Murphy, Paul
Wright, Dr Tony


O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


O'Brien, William (Normanton)



O'Hara, Edward
Tellers for the Ayes:


Olner, William
Mr. Stephen Byers and


O'Neill, Martin
Mr. Ray Powell.


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley



NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)


Aitken, Jonathan
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)


Alexander, Richard
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Baldry, Tony


Amess, David
Banks, Matthhew (Southport)


Arbuthnot, James
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bates, Michael


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Batiste, Spencer


Ashby, David
Bendall, Vivian


Aspinwall, Jack
Blackburn, Dr John G.


Atkins, Robert
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas





Booth, Hartley
Gorst, John


Boswell, Tim
Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Bowden, Andrew
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Bowis, John
Grylls, Sir Michael


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Brandreth, Gyles
Hague, William


Brazier, Julian
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Bright, Graham
Hamilton, Neil Tatton)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hampson, Dr Keith


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Hanley, Jeremy


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Hannam, Sir John


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Hargreaves, Andrew


Budgen, Nicholas
Harris, David


Burns, Simon
Haselhurst, Alan


Burt, Alistair
Hawkins, Nick


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Hawksley, Warren


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hayes, Jerry


Carrington, Matthew
Heald, Oliver


Carttiss, Michael
Heathcoat-Armory, David


Cash, William
Hendry, Charles


Chapman, Sydney
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Churchill, Mr
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Clappison, James
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rockford)
Horam, John


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Coe, Sebastian
Howarth, Alan (Stra'rd-on-A)


Colvin, Michael
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Congdon, David
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Conway, Derek
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hunter, Andrew


Couchman, James
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Gran, James
Jack, Michael


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Jenkin, Bernard


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Jessel, Toby


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Johnson, Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Day, Stephen
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Devlin, Tim
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Dickens, Geoffrey
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Key, Robert


Dover, Den
King, Rt Hon Tom


Duncan, Alan
Kirkhope, Timothy


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Knapman, Roger


Dunn, Bob
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Eggar, Tim
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Elletson, Harold
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Knox, Sir David


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Kynoch, Geroge (Kincardine)


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Evennett, David
Legg, Barry


Faber, David
Leigh, Edward


Fabricant, Michael
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Fairbaim, Sir Nicholas
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lidington, David


Fishbum, Dudley
Lightbown, David


Forman, Nigel
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)


Forth, Eric
Lord, Michael


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Luff, Peter


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Macgregor, Rt Hon John


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Maclean, David


French, Douglas
McLoughlin, Patrick


Gale, Roger
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Gallie, Phil
Madel, Sir David


Gardiner, Sir George
Maitland, Lady Olga


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Malone, Gerald


Garnier, Edward
Mans, Keith


Gill, Christopher
Marland, Paul


Gillan, Cheryl
Marlow, Tony


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Mates, Michael






Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Spink, Dr Robert


Merchant, Piers
Spring, Richard


Mills, Iain
Sproat, Iain


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Moate, Sir Roger
Steen Anthony


Monro, Sir Hector
Stephen, Michael


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Stewart, Allan


Moss, Malcolm
Streeter, Gary


Needham, Richard
Sumberg, David


Nelson, Anthony
Sweeney, Walter


Neubert, Sir Michael
Sykes, John


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Nicholls, Patrick
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Thomason, Roy


Norris, Steve
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Thomton, Peter


Ottaway, Richard
Thurnham, Peter


Page, Richard
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Paice, James
Tracey, Richard


Patnick, Irvine
Tredinnick, David


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Trend, Michael


Pawsey, James
Trotter, Neville


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Twinn, Dr Ian


Pickles, Eric
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Viggers, Peter


Porter, David (Waveney)
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Walden, George


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Waller, Gary


Richards, Rod
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Riddick, Graham
Waterson, Nigel


Robathan, Andrew
Watts, John


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Wells, Bowen


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Whitney, Ray


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Whittingdale, John


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Widdecombe, Ann


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Sackville, Tom
Wilkinson, John


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Willetts, David


Shaw, David (Dover)
Wilshire, David


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Wolfson, Mark


Shersby, Michael
Yeo Tim


Sims, Roger
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Skeet, Sir Trevor



Soames, Nicholas
Tellers for the Noes:


Speed, Sir Keith
Mr. Timothy Wood and


Spencer, Sir Derek
Mr. Andrew McKay.


Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendments made: No. 217, in page 85, line 39, at end insert—
'(6A) This section shall be disregarded in determining for the purposes of any of the relevant employment legislation whether any trade union is an independent trade union.'.

No. 218, in page 85, line 40, leave out
'(within the meaning of section 112 above)'.

No. 219, in page 85, line 42, at end add—
'(7A) In this section "the relevant employment legislation" has the same meaning as in section 112 above.'—[Mr. Maclean.]

Clause 122

EXECUTION OF WARRANTS

Mr. Maclean: I beg to move amendment No. 285, in page 92, line 28, after 'taken', insert
', as soon as reasonably practicable,'.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 286, 299, 287, 108 to 120, 288, 121, 89, 298, 91, 300, 92 to 96, 289, 97, 98, 290, 99, 100, 291, 348, 301, 101, 102, 305, 306, 302, 303.

Mr. Trimble: I do not wish to delay the proceedings of the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I shall ignore the delay caused by the unnecessary noise that interrupted me. I rise merely to remark on the fact that the amendments are to clauses that provide for cross-border enforcement. I hasten to add that they provide not for the crucial cross-frontier enforcement that should exist but for cross-border enforcement originally drafted between Scotland and England.
When the clauses were introduced in Committee, we received strong representations from the Royal Ulster Constabulary that they should be extended to Northern Ireland. We passed on those representations to the Government and are delighted to see that the amendments now provide for sensible provisions to enable warrants and other procedures to be enforceable throughout the United Kingdom. It is a welcome measure and I am delighted to see that the Government have followed our advice on the matter.

Mr. Maclean: I am delighted to accept the hon. Gentleman's thanks for yet another wise move in this Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 286, in page 92, leave out line 38 and insert—
'by a constable of a police force in Scotland.

( ) Any other person within the directions in a warrant executing that warrant under this section shall have the same powers and duties, and the person arrested the same rights, as they would have had if execution had been in the country of issue by the person within those directions.'.

No. 299, in page 92, line 39, leave out from 'section' to 'applies' in line 40.

No. 287, in page 92, line 44, after 'committal', insert
a warrant of detention and return of sentence'.—[Mr. Maclean.]

Clause 123

CROSS-BORDER POWERS OF ARREST ETC.

Amendments made: No. 108, in page 93, line 9, after 'Scotland' insert 'or in Northern Ireland'.

No. 109, in page 93, line 10, after 'Scotland' insert 'or in Northern Ireland'.

No. 110, in page 93, line 14, after 'Wales' insert 'or in Northern Ireland'.

No. 111, in page 93, line 15, after 'Wales' insert 'or in Northern Ireland'.

No. 112, in page 93, line 17, at end insert—
'(2A) If the conditions applicable to this subsection are satisfied, any constable of a police force in Northern Ireland who has reasonable grounds for suspecting that an offence has been committed or attempted in Northern Ireland and that the suspected person is in England or Wales or in Scotland may arrest without a warrant the suspected person wherever he is in England or Wales or in Scotland.'.

No. 113, in page 93, line 25, at end insert—
'(4A) The conditions applicable to subsection (2A) above are—

(a) that the suspected offence is an arrestable offence; or


(b) that, in the case of any other offence, it appears to the constable that service of a summons is impracticable or inappropriate for any of the reasons specified in subsection (3) of section 124.'.

No. 114, in page 93, line 29, after 'England' insert 'or in Northern Ireland'.

No. 115, in page 93, line 31, after 'Wales' insert 'or in Northern Ireland'.

No. 116, in page 93, line 35, after 'investigated' insert
`or to the nearest convenient designated police station in Northern Ireland or to a designated police station in Northern Ireland in which the offence is being investigated'.

No. 117, in page 93, line 37, after 'station' insert 'in Scotland'.

No. 118, in page 93, line 39, after 'Wales' insert 'or in Northern Ireland'.

No. 119, in page 93, line 39, at end insert—
'(d) if he arrested him in Northern Ireland, to take the person arrested either to the nearest convenient designated police staion in England or Wales or to a designated police station in the police area in England and Wales in which the offence is being investigated or to the nearest convenient police station in Scotland or to a police station within the sheriffdom in which the offence is being investigated;
(e) if he detained him in Northern Ireland, to take the person detained to either such police station in Scotland as is mentioned in paragraph (b) above, or to the nearest convenient designated police station in Northern Ireland;'.

No. 120, in page 93, line 42, after '(1)' insert 'or (2A)'.

No. 288, in page 93, line 46, leave out 'of search' and insert 'and duties'.

No. 121, in page 94, line 5, after '1984' insert
'and, in relation to Northern Ireland, have the same meaning as in the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989; and
constable of a police force", in relation to Northern Ireland, means a member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary or the Royal Ulster Constabulary Reserve.'.—[Mr. Maclean.]

Clause 124

POWERS OF ARREST ETC: SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS

Amendments made: No. 89, in page 94, line 19, after `(b)' insert 'and (4A)(b)'.

No. 298, in page 94, line 38, leave out 'the highway' and insert 'a highway or road'.—[Mr. Maclean.]

Clause 125

SEARCH POWERS AVAILABLE ON ARRESTS UNDER SECTIONS 122 AND 123

Amendments made: No. 91, in page 95, line 20, leave out `(b)' and '(a)'.

No. 300, in page 96, line 24, at end insert—

' "item subject to legal privilege" has the meaning given to it—

(a) as respects anything in the possession of a person searched in England and Wales, by section 10 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984;
(b) as respects anything in the possession of a person searched in Scotland, by section 40 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1987;
(c) as respects anything in the possession of a person searched in Northern Ireland, by Article 12 of the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989;'.

No. 92, in page 96, line 35 [Clause 126], after `Scotland' insert 'or in Northern Ireland'.—[Mr. Maclean.]

Clause 126

RECIPROCAL POWERS OF ARRESTS

Amendments made: No. 93, in page 96, line 37, after `Scotland' insert 'or in Northern Ireland'.

No. 94, in page 97, line 3, after 'Wales' insert 'or in Northern Ireland'.

No. 95, in page 97, line 5, after 'Wales' insert 'or in Northern Ireland'.

No. 96, in page 97, line 9, at end insert—
'(5) Where a constable of a police force in Northern Ireland would, in relation to an offence, have power to arrest a person in Northern Ireland under Article 26(6) or (7) or 27 of the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (arrestable offences and non-arrestable offences in certain circumstances) a constable of a police force in England and Wales or Scotland shall have the like power of arrest in Northern Ireland.
(6) Where a constable of a police force in England and Wales or in Scotland arrests a person in Northern Ireland by virtue of subsection (5) above—

(a) the constable shall be subject to requirements to inform the arrested person that he is under arrest and of the grounds for it corresponding to the requirements imposed by Article 30 of that Order;
(b) the constable shall be subject to a requirement to take the arrested person to a police station corresponding to the requirement imposed by Article 32 of that Order and so as respects the other related requirements of that Article; and
(c) the constable shall have powers to search the arrested person corresponding to the powers conferred by Article 34 of that Order.

(7) In this section "constable of a police force", in relation to Northern Ireland, means a member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary or the Royal Ulster Constabulary Reserve.'.—[Mr. Maclean.]

Clause 127

AID OF ONE POLICE FORCE BY ANOTHER

Amendments made: No. 289, in page 97, line 11, leave out 'of police'.
No. 97, in page 97, line 12, after 'Scotland' insert

'or the chief constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary in Northern Ireland'.

No. 98, in page 97, line 13, after 'force' insert 'or the Royal Ulster Constabulary'.

No. 290, in page 97, line 14, leave out 'of police'. No. 99, in page 97, line 16, after 'Wales' insert

'or the chief constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary in Northern Ireland'.

No. 100, in page 97, line 17, after 'force' insert 'or the Royal Ulster Constabulary'.

No. 291, in page 97, line 24, leave out 'of police'. No. 348, in page 97, line 30, after 'force', insert
'(or, where that other force is a police force in Scotland or the Royal Ulster Constabulary in Northern Ireland, of its chief officer or the chief constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary respectively)'.

No. 301, in page 97, line 41, leave out from beginning to end of line 50.

No. 101, in page 98, line 2, after '1967' insert
`or the Police Act (Northern Ireland) 1970'.

No. 102, in page 98, line 2, leave out from 'Wales' to
'respectively' in line 3 and insert Scotland and Northern Ireland'.—[Mr. Maclean.]

Clause 128

POWER TO TEST PRISONERS FOR DRUGS

Amendments made: No. 147, in page 99, leave out lines 7 to 11.

No. 148, in page 99, leave out lines 15 to 18.—[Mr. Maclean.]

Clause 130

PROHIBITED ARTICLES IN SCOTTISH PRISONS

Amendment made: No. 149, in page 102, line 43. leave out subsection (10).—[Mr. Maclean.]

Clause 131

AGE AT WHICH HOMOSEXUAL ACTS ARE LAWFUL

Amendment proposed: No. 35, in page 103, line 19, at end insert—
`In Article 3 of the Homosexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 1982 (homosexual acts in private), for "21" in both places where it occurs there is substituted "18".'.—[Ms Hoey.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 254, Noes 141.

Division No. 207]
[11.34 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Conway, Derek


Adams, Mrs Irene
Cook. Robin (Livingstone)


Ainger, Nick
Corbyn, Jeremy


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Corston, Ms Jean


Alexander, Richard
Cousins, Jim


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Cox, Tim


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Ashby, David
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John


Ashton, Joe
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Austin-Walker, John
Dalyell, Tam


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Darling, Alistair


Barnes, Harry
Davidson, Ian


Barron, Kevin
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Batiste, Spencer
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Battle, John
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Bayley, Hugh
Denham, John


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Bennett, Andrew F.
Delvin, Tim


Bermingham, Gerald
Dewar, Donald


Betts, Clive
Donohoe, Briah H.


Blair, Tony
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Boateng, Paul
Dowd, Jim


Booth, Hartley
Duncan, Alan


Boswell, Tim
Dykes, Hugh


Bowden, Andrew
Eagle, Ms Angela


Bowls, John
Eggar, Tim


Bradley, Keith
Elletson, Harold


Brandreth, Gyles
Etherington, Bill


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Fabricant, Michael


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Fishburn, Dudley


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Forth, Eric


Burden, Richard
Foster, Don (Bath)


Burns, Simon
Foulkes, Geroge


Byers, Stephen
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Fraser, John


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Fyfe, Maria


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Galbraith, Sam


Cann, Jamie
Galloway, Geroge


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Gerrard, Neil


Carrington, Matthew
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Chapman, Sydney
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Chisholm, Malcolm
Gorden, Mildred


Clapham, Michael
Gorst, John


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Graham, Thomas


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Gunnell, John


Coe, Sebastian
Hague, William


Coffey, Ann
Hain, Peter


Congdon, David
Hall, Mike


Connarty, Michael
Hampson, Dr keith





Hannam, Sir John
Miller, Andrew


Hanson, David
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Harris, David
 Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Haselhurst, Alan
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hayes, Jerry
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Heathcoat-Amory, David
 Morley, Elliot


Hendry, Charles
Mowlam, Marjorie


Heppell, John
Mullin, Chris


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.
Murphy, Paul


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Needham, Richard


Hinchliffe, David
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Home Robertson, John
Norris, Steve


Hood, Jimmy
O, Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Olner, William


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
O'Neill, Martin


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hoyle, Doug
Page, Richard


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Pendry, Tom


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Pickles, Eric


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Pickthall, Colin


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Pike, Peter L.


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Pope, Greg


Hutton, John
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Illsley, Eric
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Ingram, Adam
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Jack, Michael
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Jackson, Helen (Shefld, H)
Rendel, David


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Jamieson, David
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Jenkin, Bernard
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Rogers, Allan


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Rooker, Jeff


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Ruddock, Joan


Jowell, Tessa
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Sedgemore, Brian


Key, Robert
Short, Clare


Kilfoyle, Peter
Simpson, Alan


King, Rt Hon Tom
Skinner, Dennis


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Knox, Sir David
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Soames, Nicholas


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Soley, Clive


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Spearing, Nigel


Lewis, Terry
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Steel, Rt Hon Sie David


Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)
Steinberg, Gerry


Llwyd, Elfyn
Stott, Roger


Loyden, Eddie
Strang, Dr. Gavin


McAllion, John
Temple-Morris, Peter


McAvoy, Thomas
Thurnham, Peter


McCartney, Ian
Toensend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


McFall, John
Tredinnick, David


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Twinn, Dr Ian


MacKay, Andrew
Vaz, Keith


McKelvey, William
Wallace, James


Mackinlay, Andrew
Waller, Gary


Maclennan, Robert
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


McMaster, Gordon
Watson, Mike


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Whittingdale, John


Madden, Max
Wicks, Malcolm


Maddock, Mrs Diana
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Mahon, Alice
Wilshire, David


Maitland, Lady Olga
Wise, Audrery


Mandelson, Peter
Wolfson, Mark


Marek, Dr John
Worthington, Tony


Martlew, Eric
Wray, Jimmy


Maxton, John
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Meale, Alan



Michael, Alun
Tellers for the Ayes:


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Mr. Peter Bottomley and


Milburn, Alan
Ms Kate Hoey.




NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)


Amess, David
Aspinwall, Jack


Arbuthnot, James
Atkins, Robert






Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Lord, Michael


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Luff, Peter


Baldry, Tony
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Maclean, David


Bates, Michael
Mans, Keith


Beggs, Roy
Marland, Paul


Bellingham, Henry
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Bendall, Vivian
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Merchant, Piers


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Millis, Iain


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Brazier, Julian
Monro, Sir Hector


Bright, Graham
Moss, Malcolm


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Nelson, Anthony


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Neubert, Sir Michael


Budgen, Nicholas
Nicholls, Patrick


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Cash, William
Ottaway, Richard


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Paice, James


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Patnick, Irvine


Colvin, Michael
Pawsey, James


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Portor, Barry (Wirral S)


Cran, James
Porter, David (Waveney)


Davis, David (Booth ferry)
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Day, Stephen
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Dickens, Geoffrey
Riddick, Graham


Dover, Den
Robathan, Andrew


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Sackville, Tom


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Evennett, David
Shaw, Sir Giles, (Pudsey)


Fairbaim, Sir Nicholas
Spencer, Sir Derek


Forman, Nigel
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Spink, Dr Robert


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Sproat, Iain


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Steen, Anthony


French, Douglas
Stewart, Allan


Gale, Roger
Streeter, Gary


Gallie, Phil
Sweeney, Walter


Gardiner, Sir George
Sykes, John


Gill, Christopher
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Gillan, Cheryl
Taylor, Sir Teedy (Southend, E)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Thomason, Roy


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Thomason, Patrick Norwich N)


Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Tracey, Richard


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Trend, Michael


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Trimble, David


Hargreaves, Andrew
Trotter, Neville


Hawksley, Warren
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Viggers, Peter


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast)


Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Waterson, Nigel


Hunter, Andrew
Watts, John


Jessel, Toby
Wells, Bowen


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Whitney, Ray


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Widdecombe, Ann


Kilfedder, Sir James
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Kirkhope, Timothy
Wilkinson, John


Knapman, Roger
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Winterton, Nicholas Macc'fld)


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)



Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Tellers for the Noes:


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Mr. William Ross and


Leigh, Edward
Rev. Martin Smyth.


Lightbown, David

Question accordingly agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 343, in page 103, leave out line 20.—[Mr. Maclean.]

Clause 132

INCREASE IN CERTAIN PENALTIES

Amendment made: No. 42, in page 104, line 9, at end insert—

'(5A) Article 17 of the Fines and Penalties (Northern Ireland) Order 1984 (power of Secretary of State by order to alter sums specified in certain provisions of the law of Northern Ireland) shall have effect with the insertion, in paragraph (2), after sub-paragraph (j) of the following sub-paragraph—

"(k) column 5 or 6 of Schedule 4 to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 so far as the column in question relates to the offences under provisions of that Act specified in column 1 of that Schedule in respect of which the maximum fines were increased by Part II of Schedule 8 to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994…" '—[Mr. Maclean.]

Clause 133

EXTRADITION PROCEDURES

Amendments made: No. 189, in page 104, line 13, leave out from beginning to 'shall' and insert 'The Extradition Act 1989'.

No. 361, in page 104, line 14, at end insert—

`( ) In section 4 (extradition Orders), in subsection (4), for the words "warrant his trial if" there shall be substituted the words "make a case requiring an answer by that person if the proceedings were a summary trial of an information against him and",'.

No. 362, in page 105, leave out lines 1 to 6 and insert—

'(4) In section 9 (committal proceedings)—

(a) in subsection (2), for the words from "jurisdiction" to the end there shall be substituted the words "powers, including powers to adjourn the case and meanwhile to remand the person arrested under the warrant either in custody or on bail, as if the proceedings were the summary trial of an information against him"; and
(b) in subsection (8)(a), for the words from "warrant his trial" to the end, there shall be substituted the words "make a case requiring an answer by that person if the proceedings were the summary trial of an information against him;".

(5) In Schedule 1 (provisions applying to foreign states in respect of which an Order in Council under section 2 of the Extradition Act 1870 is in force)—

(a) in paragraph 6(1) (hearing of case), for the words from "hear the case" to the end there shall be substituted the words "have the same powers, as near as may be, including power to adjourn the case and meanwhile to remand the prisoner either in custody or on bail, as if the proceedings were the summary trial of an information against him for an offence committed in England and Wales."; and
(b) in paragraph 7(1) (committal or discharge of prisoner), for the words from "justify the committal" to "England or Wales" there shall be substituted the words "make a case requiring an answer by the prisoner if the proceedings were for the trial in England and Wales of an information for the crime,…" '[Mr. Maclean.]

Clause 134

BACKING OF WARRANTS—REPUBLIC OF IRELAND

Amendment made: No. 363, in page 105, line 23, leave out from 'from' to end of line 29 and insert—
'and the proceedings" to the end, there shall be substituted the words "as if the proceedings were the summary trial of an information against that person.".'—[Mr. Maclean.]

Clause 137

SALE OF TICKETS FOR DESIGNATED FOOTBALL MATCHES BY UNAUTHORISED PERSONS

Mr. Tom Pendry: I beg to move amendment No. 126, in page 108, line 35, leave out from second 'a' to end of line 36 and insert


`Sporting event for which 6,000 or more tickets are issued for sale'.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following: Government amendments Nos. 179 and 180.
Amendment No. 127, in page 108, line 39, leave out `match' and insert 'event'.
Amendment No. 128, in page 108, line 40, leave out `match;' and insert 'event; and'.
Amendment No. 129, in page 108, line 41, leave out from second 'ticket' to end of line 46.
Government amendment No. 181.
Amendment No. 130, in page 109, line 5, leave out `designated football matches' and insert 'sporting events.'

Mr. Pendry: The purpose of amendment No. 126 is to extend the legislation to cover not only football matches but all sporting events that sell more than 6,000 tickets. It does not go as far as the amendment moved in Committee, which the Government—for reasons best known to them—did not support. However, it specifically addresses an area of increasing criminality.
Crime prevention should be a high priority for the Government, with worrying trends being seen in society and particularly in ticket touting. I hope that the Minister will respond positively. This is more a sporting than a political lobby. The Minister will see that the amendment's supporters include not only sporting institutions but hon. Members on both sides of the House—including the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe), the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), and hon. Members representing the interests of the Police Federation.
The House may wonder why we pitched the ticket issue figure at 6,000. That is partly because we have no intention of restricting the measure to small events, such as those held on the local village green, where the menace of touting does not arise. A figure of 6,000 ticket sales will cover No. 1 court and the centre court at Wimbledon. It is of particular concern to that sport, because there is much evidence that significant criminal elements are hijacking the smooth running of the championships. Our information is that activities of ticket touts are now a major and growing criminal problem.
We recognise—[Interruption.] If Conservative Members want me to go on and on, I shall give way to as many of them as they like, but I will go on and then keep quiet, because my Whip tells me to.
We recognise that no two sports are the same, and the problems associated with football do not necessarily relate to other sporting events, but there is now one common element to all major sporting events such as cricket, football, rugby, tennis, golf and so on—the potential that they offer to the criminal element who tout tickets. I intend to highlight some of those problems.
Suffice to say, I have had letters of support from various bodies, including the Professional Golfers Association, the Rugby Football Union, the Football Association, the Test and County Cricket Board and Lord's cricket ground as well—[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. There are too many private conversations going on.

Mr. John Carlisle: rose—

Mr. Pendry: I will not have any help from the hon. Gentleman. I have had it before, and do not particularly like it. As I said, I have received letters from various organisations. The hon. Gentleman is a member of Lord's, so he should be listening carefully to what I am saying.
The actions of the criminal element now regularly include fraud, theft, deception, intimidation, forgery and, in some circumstances, activities of a very serious criminal nature, such as gang and Mafia-type operations.
In Committee, the Minister stated that it was the public order consequences of touting that worried him. The advice from all sides—the customer, the organiser and, indeed, the Police Federation—is that there is a serious problem with events other than football. If the Government reject the amendment, they will fly in the face of all known opinion on the subject.
The sporting bodies that I listed believe that legislation is necessary. Wimbledon has become so frustrated at the touting problem that it has introduced its own attempts at self-policing. That concern took many forms, but, principally, it was worried about the increasing use of strong-arm tactics, theft and forgery of tickets, as well as the bad image that such a presence was giving to the tournament. Wimbledon tickets now state that they are non-transferable and may be bought only from the club or its licensed agents. The unauthorised sale or transfer of those tickets immediately invalidates them. That means that the actions of the touts is nothing less than criminal deception. When they sell on a ticket, it is worthless.
Sadly, that has led to misery for hundreds of customers who, having spent a fortune on tickets from touts, are refused entry at the doors of the ground. While sporting events such as Wimbledon are now much more protected by those regulations, their potential customers are not. Cases highlighted to me by Wimbledon include one where five individuals paid £2,500 for an unofficial corporate package in which the tickets were invalid. Another was of a German executive who paid £50,000 for what he believed was a corporate package of 35 centre court tickets, only to find on arrival that they were invalid because they had broken the transfer rules.
The Minister may take the view that that is the fault of the person buying the ticket. Yet, in many cases, the buyer has been misinformed by the tout and has little comprehension or awareness of ticket regulations and, in some cases, even of the language.
All the major sporting bodies report having to undertake intensive operations in the mailing of their tickets to prevent theft by post. I do not wish to go on, although I could. But the Government are foolish indeed if they ignore all those sporting bodies. The 14th Earl of Derby would be turning in his grave if he knew that the Government were ignoring these institutions in our society. The Government must recognise that this is a criminal justice Bill, not just a public order Bill. The criminality elements contained in ticket touting are manifest. If the Government do not recognise that today, they will do so very soon because the institutions to which I have referred will not keep quiet but will intensify their lobbying of us and of the Government. I hope that the Government will eventually recognise that—if not now, in the very near future.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: The original clause appears in the Bill as a result of Lord Justice Taylor's report following the Hillsborough disaster. The


clause was designed to try to alleviate circumstances that might give rise to danger for people attending football matches.
It is clear from what has been said by the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) and from a large volume of evidence, anecdotal and otherwise, that ticket touting has an effect on sporting events beyond simply creating circumstances in which there might be a risk for those who wish to attend as spectators. As has already been pointed out, there is now convincing evidence of organised criminal behaviour. The notion of the ticket tout as a friendly Flashman-type figure has long since been removed from the consciousness of those who have made any study of the matter. Consequently, the amendments are intended to bring home as graphically as possible the fact that ticket touting is a serious criminal matter.
Quite apart from that, ticket touting stains the reputation of the United Kingdom and of particular sporting events. Some of the stories from the west end theatre world about ticket touting and the extent to which tourists have been deceived make it perfectly plain that it is does very little for the reputation of London or for that of the United Kingdom as a whole. We are not dealing with the theatre now, but the same principles apply to sporting events.
The sporting authorities at Wimbledon, the rugby unions and other sporting organisations have done their best and changed the terms on which tickets are made available to members of the public by introducing their own schemes deliberately designed to try to thwart the efforts of ticket touts. It is perfectly clear that there is a substantial problem beyond football. The amendments are designed to deal with that problem and, on that footing, I hope that they will commend themselves to the House.

Mr. Joseph Ashton: I have a great deal of sympathy with what my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) said, but this is a long-standing problem which has been brought to the House's attention many times. It is really a trade and industry problem in the sense that it is very difficult to control the price of a second-hand article, whether it is a car, a house, a painting or a ticket. I do not agree with it, but I accept the argument that there is a market value for a product and that one cannot distort the market.
I am glad that the Minister has accepted some amendments relating to football, but there is a further problem involving danger. At football grounds, supporters are segregated—each lot of supporters goes to a different end of the ground to prevent the punch-ups, violence and disturbances that we witnessed throughout the 1970s. Ticket touts often gain a large number of tickets for one end of a ground and sell them indiscriminately. There have been allegations about football managers, but I shall not mention the manager who has been accused on television of selling 2,000 of his team's supporters' tickets indiscriminately on the black market, thus causing 2,000 spectators at Wembley to be at the wrong end of the ground. If there is a dispute over a controversial goal, it is clear that aggravation and violence are likely. That is why we prevailed on the Minister.
I am glad that the Minister has accepted the advice of the Football Association and, apart from banning the sale of tickets on the day of the event, has graciously agreed to ban the sale for seven days beforehand. If a team gets to a

cup final and tickets are sold in the pubs in the preceding seven days, there is often a tiny oasis of spectators at the wrong end of the ground who are surrounded. It can become like the battle of the Alamo or Custer's last stand, and the spectators feel that they have to fight their way out.
When there was standing at football grounds those spectators could be escorted to the front of the ground, taken round to the other end and told to stand anywhere. They could be absorbed, and the violence could be prevented. But with the all-seater stadiums that Government regulations insist on, there is nowhere to put them now. There are no spare seats at the other end of the ground and people have to remain in the original seats. Women and children are often surrounded by thugs who may be semi-drunk, and use bad language and threatening behaviour. The thugs create all sorts of problems for the police and the stewards when the video cameras pick them out.
12 midnight
That is one reason why I am glad that the Home Office has accepted the Football Association's advice that the issue is one of public order and of preventing disturbance. With respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde, at Wimbledon and other sporting events and at pop concerts the difference is that everyone is on the same side. At Wimbledon there are not two sides who will have a punch-up if someone's favourite loses the match. There is no such problem at pop concerts, or at the Derby and other horse races.
Although I am against touts making a profit out of those events, at least one can say that the market economy can prevail there. I am glad that the Minister of State has accepted the argument on violence at football matches—an argument that does not apply to Twickenham or other such places.

Mr. Alan Haselhurst: I must tell the Minister that I cannot understand the logic of looking at the issue entirely in terms of football. I realise that there is a problem with violence at football matches, but the question is whether ticket touting in itself is an offence that should be considered, and whether it has the potential for causing disorder in other sports.
I ask my hon. Friend to reconsider the matter in the wider context. I have had representations from the cricket authorities suggesting that touting is a potential problem for them, too. As an attender of cricket matches I know that it is offensive, for example, if one is going to a match at Lord's, to walk out of St. John's Wood station and have to go through a channel of people touting tickets. If that is not now a serious offence, it will be a serious problem in future.
We should not consider the matter in a blinkered fashion, as a problem affecting football alone. Sad though it may be to say so, it could be a wider problem. My hon. Friend would do the House a service if he undertook to reconsider before the statute is finally determined whether the problem is exclusive to football. I suspect that it is not.

Mr. Sebastian Coe: I do not wish to labour some of the arguments about law and order which have already been articulately expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House, but I shall dwell for a few moments on a couple of issues that I consider germane to the debate.


When I left the Sports Council in 1989, I was convinced that our sporting future—our ability to produce winning teams and to maintain the ethos of competitive teams—was bound up with people's ability to watch sport at the highest level. There are sophisticated and sensitive arguments about excellence and participation, and sensitive balances have to be struck, but in my mind there is no doubt that youngsters' ability to emulate competitors and role models on the sports field, through having reasonable access to sporting events of the highest nature, is a vital part of that.
Ordinary constituents of mine who hope one day to get to a test match, a Wimbledon final or—with a little bit of luck—an FA cup final, think little of sleeping rough for a day and a half or two days outside a stadium to get a ticket. A moral issue arises when a ticket tout can sell a ticket that should have been destined for one of those people to someone who simply turns up on the day of an event with a few hundred pounds in his pocket. That is wrong. Clearly, the morality of that should be questioned on both sides of the House.
It is increasingly difficult for ordinary fans to get into most events, with a plethora of sponsorship boxes. I do not wish the difficulty to be added to by ticket touts cornering the market. I know that the argument will be that this is not a law and order issue and that it is not an issue on which we should regulate. We are committed to improving and enhancing our national sport. We are committed to doing so by the enhancement of competitive sport. These are issues of participation, and participation depends greatly on excellence. Excellence comes from people's ability to watch sport at the highest level. Ticket touting sits uneasily with our determination to develop competitive sport. It also sits uneasily with our need to develop "The Health of the Nation" policies. I wish to—

Dr. Godman: Conclude.

Mr. Coe: I wish to support the amendment—yes, and to conclude. I hope that the Government are able to look afresh at the matter and at least to reconsider some of the issues.

Mr. Maclean: There has been support for clause 137 from most hon. Members. The main criticism has been that
the Government's original proposals were drawn too narrowly. I undertook to reflect following the debate in Committee. I have done so and I am now pleased to commend Government amendments Nos. 179 and 181 to the House. I appreciate the kind welcome given to them by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), whose wise words I commend to all hon. Members.
Amendments Nos. 126 to 130 seek to go much further and to widen the offence of the unauthorised sale of a ticket for a designated football match to all sporting events for which more than 6,000 tickets are issued. The Government do not believe that that is necessary.
As I said, the original clause 112 was intended to implement the specific recommendation of the Taylor report after the Hillsborough stadium disaster that the touting of tickets for and on the day of a designated football match should be made illegal. Taylor adduced two evils which arose. First, the presence of touts outside football grounds can act as a focus for disorder, as those without tickets are encouraged to travel to the venue in the hope of obtaining them, with the result that an unofficial, unruly rugby scrum sometimes develops. Secondly, Taylor was

concerned about the effect of the indiscriminate sale of tickets by touts on segregation arrangements, as the hon. Member for Bassetlaw pointed out. In other words, action was necessary on football ticket touts for reasons of public order and public safety only.
In the cases quoted by the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry), if people were selling forged or fraudulent tickets, or tickets that did not guarantee the seat that they were alleged to guarantee, existing criminal law would cover that. Existing offences of fraud cover those
situations.
With all due respect to many great sporting organisations, I believe that they should police their own arrangements better. It is possible to follow the excellent example of Arsenal football club whose tickets are invalidated if they are transferred, by whatever devious means, to others who, perhaps, should not have them. We must ask ourselves this question: do we intend to bring in the criminal law and make it a criminal offence for someone, when there is no question of disorder or violence, to sell tickets for Wimbledon or other sporting events at more than their face value? Where is the really bad or immoral behaviour? Is it found in those who are selling the tickets, or in those who acquired them to pass them on to the touts in the first place? I say to sporting organisations that if they do not want touts selling tickets, they should control their own tickets more strictly.
The unauthorised sale of tickets for football matches presents a problem to public order and public safety, as we all agree. We see little evidence of public disorder or lack of safety in other sports. If, in due course, there is rioting at the ice dance championships or public disorder at the synchronised swimming events, I shall consider legislating in those cases only. At the moment, we see no such need, so I must, therefore, oppose the Opposition amendments.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 143, Noes 269.

Division No. 208]
[12.09


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Adams, Mrs Irene
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John


Ainger, Nick
Dalyell, Tam


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Darling, Alistair


Alton, David
Davidson, Ian


Austin-Walker, John
Day, Stephen


Bayley, Hugh
Dewar, Donald


Beggs, Roy
Dixon, Don


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Donohoe, Brian H.


Bennett, Andrew F.
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Bermingham, Gerald
Enright, Derek


Betts, Clive
Etherington, Bill


Blair, Tony
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Bradley, Keith
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Foster, Don (Bath)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Foulkes, George


Burden, Richard
Fraser, John


Caborn, Richard
Fyfe, Maria


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Galbraith, Sam


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Galloway, George


Cann, Jamie
Gerrard, Neil


Cattle, Alexander (Montgomry)
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Chisholm, Malcolm
Gordon, Mildred


Clapham, Michael
Graham, Thomas


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Gunnell, John


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hain, Peter


Connarty, Michael
Hall, Mike


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Hanson, David


Corbyn, Jeremy
Heppell, John


Corston, Ms Jean
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Cox, Tom
Hinchliffe, David






Hoey, Kate
Milburn, Alan


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Miller, Andrew


Home Robertson, John
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hood, Jimmy
Morley, Elliot


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Mowlam, Marjorie


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Mullin, Chris


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Hutton, John
Olner, William


Illsley, Eric
O'Neill, Martin


Ingram, Adam
Patchett, Terry


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Pendry, Tom


Jackson, Helen (Shefld, H)
Pickthall, Colin


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Pike, Peter L.


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Pope, Greg


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Reid, Dr John


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Rendel, David


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Kilfoyle, Peter
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Lewis, Terry
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Llwyd, Elfyn
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Loyden, Eddie
Ruddock, John


McAvoy, Thomas
Sedgmore, Brian


McCartney, Ian
Simpson, Alan


Macdonald, Calum
Skinner, Dennis


McFall, John
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


McKelvey, William
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Mackinlay, Andrew
Spearing, Nigel


Maclennan, Robert
Steinberg, Gerry


McMaster, Gordon
Strang, Dr. Gavin


McWilliam, John
Turner, Dennis


Madden, Max
Wallace, James


Maddock, Mrs Diana
Watson, Mike


Mahon, Alice
Welsh, Andrew


Marek, Dr John
Wilson, Brian


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Wise, Audrey


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Worthington, Tony


Martlew, Eric
Wray, Jimmy


Maxton, John



Meale, Alan
Tellers for the Ayes:


Michael, Alun
Mr. Harry Barnes and


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Mr. Ray Powell.


NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Brown, M.  Brigg & Cl'thorpes)


Aitken, Jonathan
Browning, Mrs. Angela


Alexander, Richard
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Budgen, Nicholas


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Burns, Simon


Amess, David
Burt, Alistair


Arbuthnot, James
Carlisle, John (Luton North)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Carrington, Matthew


Ashby, David
Cartiss, Michael


Ashton, Joe
Cash, William


Aspinwall, Jack
Churchill, Mr


Atkins, Robert
Clappison, James


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Clark, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Colvin, Michael


Baldry, Tony
Congdon, David


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Conway, Derek


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Bates, Michael
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Batiste, Spencer
Couchman, James


Bellingham, Henry
Cran, James


Bendall, Vivian
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Blackbum, Dr John G.
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Booth, Hartley
Delvlin, Tim


Boswell, Tim
Dickens, Geoffrey


Bowden, Andrew
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bowis, John
Dover, Den


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Duncan, Alan


Brandreth, Gyles
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Brazier, Julian
Dunn, Bob


Bright, Graham
Dykes, Hugh


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Eggar, Tim





Elletson, Harold
Lidington, David


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Lightbown, David


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Lord, Michael


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Luff, Peter


Evennett, David
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Faber, David
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Fabricant, Michael
Mackay, Andrew


Fairbaim, Sir Nicholas
Maclean, David


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Fishbum, Dudley
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Forman, Nigel
Madel, Sir David


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Maitland, Lady Olga


Forth, Eric
Malone, Gerald


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Mans, Keith


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Marland, Paul


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Marlow, Tony


French, Douglas
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Gale, Roger
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gardiner, Sir George
Mates, Michael


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
 Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Garnier, Edward
Merchant, Piers


Gill, Christopher
Mills, Iain


Gillan, Cheryl
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Moate, Sir Roger


Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)
Monro, Sir Roger


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Moss, Malcolm


Hague, William
Nelson, Anthony


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hampson, Dr Keith
Nicholls, Patrick


Hanley, Jeremy
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hannam, Sir John
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Harris, David
Norris, Steve


Haselhurst, Alan
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Hawkins, Nick
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hawksley, Warren
Ottaway, Richard


Hayes, Jerry
Page, Richard


Heald, Oliver
Paice, James


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Patnick, Irvine


Hendry, Charles
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.
Pawsey, James


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Pickles, Eric


Horam, John
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Porter, David (Waveney)


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Richards, Rod


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Riddick, Graham


Hunter, Andrew
Robathan, Andrew


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Jack, Michael
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Jenkin, Bernard
Roe, Mrs Marionh (Broxbourne)


Jessel, Toby
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Sackville, Tom


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Shaw, David (Dover)


Key, Robert
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Sims, Roger


Kirkhope, Timothy
Soames, Nicholas


Knapman, Roger
Spencer, Sir Derek


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Spink, Dr Robert


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Spring, Richard


Knox, Sir David
Sproat, Iain


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Steen Anthony


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Stephen, Michael


Legg, Barry
Stewart, Michael


Leigh, Edward
Streeter, Gary


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Sumberg, David


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Sweeney, Walter






Sykes, John
Wardel, Charles (Bexhill)


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Waterson, Nigel


Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)
Watts, John


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wells, Bowen


Thomason, Roy
Whitney, Ray


Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
Whittingdale, John


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Widdecombe, Ann


Thornton, Sir Malcolm
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Thumham, Peter
Wilkison, John


Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)
Willetts, David


Tredinnick, David
Wilshire, David


Trend, Michael
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Trotter, Neville
Wolfson, Mark


Twinn, Dr Ian
Yeo, Tim


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Viggers, Peter



Waldegrave, Rt Hon William
Tellers for the Noes:


Walden, George
Mr. Sydney Chapman and


Walker, Bill (N Tayside)
Mr. Tim Wood.


Waller, Gary

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Clause 137

SALE OF TICKETS FOR DESIGNATED FOOTBALL MATCHES BY UNAUTHORISED PERSONS.

Amendments made: No. 179, in page 108, line 35, leave out from 'match' to 'in' in line 36.

No. 180, in page 108, line 36, at end insert

'or, in the course of a trade or business, in any other place'.

No. 181, in page 108, line 42, leave out from beginning to `and' in line 43.—[Mr. Maclean.]

Clause 139

POWER OF SECRETARY OF STATE TO MAKE GRANTS IN RELATION TO CRIME PREVENTION, ETC.

Amendments made: No. 58, in page 109, line 24, leave out from beginning to 'as' and insert—

(a) make such payments, or
(b) pay such grants, to such persons,'.

No. 59, in page 109, line 27, leave out 'such grant' and insert
'grant under subsection (1)(b) above'.—[Mr. Maclean.]

Clause 140

SECURITY COSTS AT PARTY CONFERENCES.

Mrs. Diana Maddock: I beg to move amendment No. 34, in page 109, line 33, after 'a' insert
'Police Authority, or by a'.
This is a very straightforward amendment. It allows the Government to ensure that the now regrettably escalating costs of funding security at party conferences do not fall on the council tax payers in the counties hosting the conferences. The current arrangements hit local taxpayers particularly hard in those few areas that have been chosen as the main venues for the party conferences of our main political parties. The towns are Brighton, Blackpool and Bournemouth in Lancashire, East Sussex and my own county of Dorset.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: Would the hon. Lady care to explain which are the two parties that meet in those venues?

Mrs. Maddock: We are going to Brighton this year. We have been in Bournemouth in other years. The point is the cost, whoever goes there. It does not matter which party it is.
There is no doubt that since the tragic bombing of the Grand hotel in Brighton in 1984 a number of heavy security costs, especially to do with searching and the extra manpower in the streets surrounding the conference centres, are now incurred not only by the political parties but by the police authorities in the counties that I have mentioned. In my own county of Dorset, the chief constable estimates that the cost of policing and security at this year's Tory party conference in Bournemouth will be £2.6 million.

Mr. Keith Mans: Will the hon. Lady confirm that if Bournemouth does not want to hold the Tory party conference, it need not do so? It can be held elsewhere. The fact that it is being held there means that it should be of some commercial benefit to the town.

Mrs. Maddock: If the hon. Gentleman is patient he will have an answer to his point.
In a letter to me the chief constable says:
This large amount of expenditure in one financial year means that the force must create a reserve by annual contribution to pay for this severe drain on our financial resources.
It means that every year in Dorset there is less money to spend on general policing in the county, less for crime prevention measures, less for police patrols and less for solving crimes and catching criminals.
At conference times, there is an additional drain on Dorset police's human resources, with officers necessarily drafted in from elsewhere in the county to patrol around the Bournemouth international centre.
That is extremely bad news for the people of Dorset, because between 1979 and 1992 there has been a 78 per cent. increase in motor vehicle thefts and a 171 per cent. increase in the number of domestic burglaries. In the past year alone, there has been a 10 per cent. increase in serious crime in the county.
All police forces have occasional major incidents, and the mass murder inquiry that is under way in Gloucestershire is a current example. However, few have regular drains on their resources. Dorset, East Sussex and Lancashire do. I have heard that there is a strong possibility that the Tory party conference will soon start coming to Bournemouth every other year. I can understand that. Bournemouth is a congenial place—Christchurch is, too, of course—with a beautiful setting, excellent accommodation and an excellent modem conference centre. In answer to the hon. Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans), Dorset people welcome conferences with open arms, but they do not welcome the extra cost falling on all of them for something which is part of our national political scene.

Mr. Robert Banks: The hon. Lady will recall that the Liberal Democrats have held many conferences in Harrogate. Would she like to have a whip round among her hon. Friends to reimburse us for the cost of policing those conferences?

Mrs. Maddock: If the Government are generous enough to pass the amendment, all people will have the benefit. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that Liberal Democrats do not cost so much when they have party conferences. We are much better value for money.


My fellow Dorset Members of Parliament believe that the cost should be born nationally, and they have endeavoured to persuade the Government. They have liaised with East Sussex and Lancashire, and the new Liberal Democrat administration on Dorset county council has, through its deputy leader Robin Legg, also tried to further the cause. I understand that members of the Lancashire police authority had a meeting with the Minister of State, Lord Ferrers, in December and they have asked for a further meeting with the Home Secretary for representatives from the three counties affected.
In 1986, the Government recognised that political parties should not have to bear all the costs that they incur in providing security at conferences, and that they should be reimbursed from the national public purse. Since that time, payments have been made under the authority of the Appropriation Act. Only with the clause that my colleagues and I are seeking to amend will this at last be put on a statutory footing.
There can be no better time than now to deal with the unfairness of distribution of local police authority costs. I appreciate that the Government are responsible for 51 per cent. of police spending, and that additional grants from the Government to local authorities make up some of the other 49 per cent. However, the grants and formulas under which they are calculated do not specifically take account of the additional burden of funding the policing of party conferences.
The standard spending assessments, capping limits and

grants ignore what is a significant part of the police budget for the areas affected. Party conferences have a special place in our democracy—those words were used by Margaret Thatcher—and I am sure that we all believe that they must be allowed to take place. Likewise, none of us would argue that conference-goers and people involved in running conference should go unprotected. I believe, as do many hon. Members and members of local police authorities, that the source of funding should reflect the national nature and importance of party conferences and not fall unfairly on the people who live in the areas that attract large conferences.
This is a fair amendment; it is common sense to make it at this time and it would welcomed by those police authorities which are affected. They would get the extra resources that they need to protect party conferences and would be allowed to keep their existing resources to tackle rising crime.

Mr. Maclean: From time to time, every police force has to cope with demands which are not routine and most forces can claim to have responsibilities with strong national implications comparable with those carried by forces involved in policing party conferences.
12.30am
We regularly review the funding arrangements, but to date it has not been considered right to single out policing costs arising from party conferences for additional central Government funding. Therefore, I cannot accept the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 141

EXPENSES ETC UNDER ACT

Amendment made: No. 52, in page 110, line 8 after 'sections', insert '2, —[Mr. Maclean.]

Clause 142

SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT

Amendments made: No. 344, in page 110, line 17, leave out from beginning to 'this' in line 18 and insert
'With the exception of section 72 and, subject to subsection (3A) below,'.

No. 41, in page 110, line 18, leave out 'Chapter' and insert

'Chapters I and'. No. 345, in page 110, line 19, after 'State' insert
'or, in the case of sections 43 and 44, the Lord Chancellor'.

No. 346, in page 110, line 25, at end inser—
'(3A) The following provisions and their related amendments and repeals shall come into force on the passing of this Act, namely sections 5 to 15 (and Schedules 1 and 2), 51, 53, 55, 58, 59, 60, 61, 67 to 70, 71, 73, Chapters I and IV of Part VIII, 131, 133(1) to (3), 137, 141 and this section.

(3B) For the purposes of subsection (3A) above—

(a) the following are the amendments related to the provisions specified in that subsection, namely, in Schedule 10, paragraphs 35 and 38(1), (3), (4) and (5);
(b) the repeals related to the provisions specified in that subsection are those specified in the Note at the end of Schedule 11.'

No. 176, in page 110, line 26, at beginning insert
'Except as regards any provisions applied under section (Power to apply sections 29 to 33 to armed forces) and'.—[Mr. Maclean.]

Mr. Maclean: I beg to move amendment No. 28, in page 110, line 29, leave out '58, 59,'.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
No. 25, in page 110, line 29, leave out '60, 61,'.
Government amendment No. 80.
Amendment No. 22, in page 110, line 33, at end insert
'(7A) Sections 58 and 59 do not extend to Wales'.

Mr. McFall: The Minister of State, the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), last night mentioned when he rejected new clause 22 on badger digging that it was normal for people to go about: the countryside with shovels—that is a matter of public record. In Scotland, people who go about the countryside in hill-walking gear may find themselves contravening the law because the Government have, for the first lime, brought the criminal law to bear on such a situation there. That is very worrying for many people in Scotland.
I and other right hon. and hon. Friends have been contacted by 115 organisations that are fearful for the consequences. The law creates the offence of aggravated trespass. In the opinion of many people in Scotland the law is unnecessary—it is vague and will be subject to various interpretations. The Law Society, for example, stated when it contacted me about the matter that the case has not been made for the need to legislate in that area. In that society's view the law of breach of the peace would satisfactorily cover the intimidation of persons carrying out a lawful activity.
Why have the Government brought such activities within the law? So far as I am aware, the provision was not intended to apply to Scotland, but the Secretary of State received a letter on 29 October 1993 from a farmer in the

Borders—a certain Mr. Peter Straker-Smith—complaining about disruption of his grouse shooting. As a result, the Secretary of State decided to introduce this catch-all amendment, which will be very bad for the law in Scotland. The provisions in respect of obstruction or disruption of lawful activity are unduly vague and could lead to innocent or lawful behaviour which obstructs or disrupts other lawful activity being subject to the offences provisions. Ramblers, hill walkers and other recreational users are not excluded from the provisions of the clause.
Here, one of the main proponents has been the Scottish Landowners Federation which, it is stated, is fully behind this law. I have here a letter dated 22 March 1994 from Duncan Thompson, who is the legal adviser to the Scottish Landowners Federation. Mr. Thompson stated that the organisation's view is that there is a specific public order problem which must be addressed—the deliberate disruption of field sports—and which is not adequately dealt with under the existing law. The federation's legal adviser goes on to say that it would have no objection to an amendment to narrow the focus of the clause to the specific mischief to be targeted.
Why has the Secretary of State incorporated in the Bill a catch-all provision when no one—absolutely no one, and certainly not the Scottish Landowners Federation—in Scotland is asking for it? Why is the clause necessary? What is the mischief that the Government intend to prevent? And what are the lawful activities to which the clause refers? Can the Minister explain the difference, in Scotland, between a breach of the peace and intimidation, as dealt with in clauses 58 and 59? What constitutes obstruction and disruption? Are these tests not subjective rather than objective? One person may be more disruptable than another.
Have the Government really considered the implications for Scotland of the results of this legislation? Will it, for example, be disruption if a party of school children on a nature lesson disturbs a shepherd during lambing? Will it be disruption if an environmental group seeks, through peaceful protest, to prevent environmental damage?
In a letter to George Cubitt, the chairman of the outdoor pursuits division of the Central Council for Physical Recreation, the Home Secretary's private secretary, Miss Vikki Molloy, stated that the police and the courts are very familiar with the concept of intent and that the problem of misinterpretation should not, therefore, arise. In fact, the police in Scotland are not very familiar with that concept. Because of the vagueness of the catch-all phrase, they are very fearful about the introduction of the provision in Scotland. It will undermine the long-established freedom to roam in uncultivated areas of mountain and moorland in Scotland. As some 100,000 walkers and climbers use the highlands during summer weekends it will pose a danger to many people enjoying the countryside.
The provision also makes nonsense of a review currently being undertaken by the Government's own body, Scottish Natural Heritage. I refer to the review of access to the outdoors. What are the opinions of Scottish Natural Heritage? I wrote to the organisation about this matter and the chief executive, Roger Cross, stated in a very sensitive way that what Scottish Natural Heritage does not want is that the understanding that has been built up between hill walkers and landowners should be disrupted. There is no doubt that the understanding, sensitivity and equilibrium that have been achieved will be disrupted.


What does Scottish Natural Heritage say? Why have the Government gone ahead when that organisation is currently conducting its review of access? Out of the blue, trespass is to be criminalised. I am informed that the chairman of Scottish Natural Heritage, Magnus Magnusson, has written privately to the Secretary of State. Mr. Magnusson is worried about the fact that voluntary co-operation between landowners and sports bodies in respect of land use could be seriously undermined.
There is a problem in respect of loch Lomond, which is in my constituency. Month after month and year after year, I have been telling the Scottish Office that something other than the voluntary principle is needed. The Government have stood by the voluntary principle in relation to loch Lomond. Yet here we find the voluntary principle possibly being undermined by the introduction of this unnecessary clause.
Those laws, according to the Law Society of Scotland and others, could be far more oppressive than Ministers intended. The Scottish Landowners Federation does not want the unspecific wording. In his address to the annual general meeting on 8 March, the convenor of the federation, Mr. Disney Barlow, stated that the
essence of the new offence will be criminal intention to intimidate, disrupt or obstruct. Those are not the intentions of ramblers or of any reasonable people, and reasonable people are not going to be affected".
But any lawyer will confirm that it is extremely hard to define in law a "reasonable" action or person. The legal adviser has already recognised that reasonable people will be affected, so landowners are aware of the concerns.
If the Minister or the Secretary of State had reassured the Scottish people, that would have been fine, but not a word has been uttered and I am afraid that the Scottish public are convinced that the Home Secretary is legislating for England and Wales and the Secretary of State for Scotland at the very last minute is applying the clauses to Scotland for a problem that does not exist there. The case for legislation has not been made. We have adequate mechanisms now with regard to breach of the peace. The civil law has operated in Scotland since 1965 under the Trespass Act of that date.
I draw the Minister's attention to an interesting story in The Scotsman last Friday about trespass. Every voluntary organisation and reasonable landowner will confirm that, because of the understanding that has developed over the years, a balance between access and landowners' rights has been achieved in Scotland. The story relates to two individuals who were found guilty at Dingwall sheriff court of trespass under the 1965 Act. It happened because the landowner sent instructions by fax from southern Africa that they were to be prosecuted. Foreign landowners are insensitive to the position in Scotland. They can fax messages from all over the world and their instructions are then carried out. The understanding that exists in Scotland then goes for a burton because of the wishes of some absent landlord, whether he be in South Africa, Rio or anywhere else. That is what will happen in Scotland. It is fine having a responsible landowner in Scotland, but the chances of having a responsible landowner in South Africa commuting his message by high tech will be far less.
The clause could apply to one's own back yard. We are not just talking about the grouse moor; we could be talking about young people who kick their football into someone's

garden and go in to retrieve it. How could that be considered aggressive trespass? According to some people, it could be. If we have a latterday Miss Haversham whose solitude, peace and quiet is being disturbed, we shall have that offence. That is absurd. How much torpor must exist in the Scottish Office for Ministers to think for one minute of introducing such an inappropriate clause in the Bill. Just as equity is as long or as short as the Lord Chancellor's foot, the concepts of obstruction and disruption are as long or as short as the landowner's foot.
12.45 am
That is the type of uncertainty that has been introduced into the law of England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. It is law that may lead to confrontation with which the forces of law and order will be ill equipped to deal. Under this law, if citizen's arrest exists—and we cannot tell from the clause whether it does—we may see a landowner and half a dozen ghillies arresting a troop of hill walkers, or a gamekeeper arresting a group of environmental protestors.
The official Opposition say "Out with this clause". It is inappropriate to Scotland; it has no place in Scotland. When a Labour Government are elected we will make sure that the law is repealed.

Mr. John Home Robertson: I rise—[Interruption.]

Mr. Dickens: Landowner.

Mr. Home Robertson: Indeed, yes. I rise to support amendment No. 28 because I regard clauses 58 and 59 as deeply sinister intrusions into the law of Scotland. They create powers which are unwarranted and unwanted. Like virtually every Scottish Member in this House, I have received large numbers of letters from constituents expressing strong opposition to the Government's proposal to create a new offence of trespass which could be used to restrict people's right of reasonable access to open countryside in Scotland.
The only law of trespass in Scotland today is in the 1865 Act, which has very limited scope. It applies to unauthorised occupation of buildings, camping and lighting fires. It has no power to obstruct any other form of reasonable access to open countryside. We do not need such a power in Scotland and we do not want it. It is an alien concept which has no place in the law of Scotland.
I speak as a Scottish Member of Parliament from a largely rural constituency, where local people and visitors alike have always enjoyed their access to the Lammermuir hills, the seaside links and the countryside in between. My constituency includes Dunbar, which is the birth place of John Muir, the founder of the environmental movement not only in Scotland but indeed in north America. It is an insult to his memory that we should be considering imposing restrictions on access to the countryside.
I speak also as a farmer who has had plenty of experience of the free access to the open countryside that people enjoy in Scotland. It hardly ever causes any problems. On one occasion a problem was caused by the hunt appearing uninvited on the farm and doing some damage, but that was some time ago. Apart from that incident, my personal experience of farming in Scotland indicates that there is no problem associated with reasonable access to the open countryside. In Scotland we


have reasonable access provisions which are greatly enjoyed and not abused. There is no need for this amendment to the law.
In an earlier debate on the Bill we heard about so-called "new age travellers". I fear that what we have in Scotland today—and what the Government are responding to today—is new age landlords. Some of them are home-grown, but in many cases they are people from outside Scotland who have acquired land in Scotland and who feel the need to lock gates and obstruct access to their land. They are creating aggravation where there has never been aggravation in the past.
I have had some trouble of this kind in my constituency. A very substantial tract of my constituency—a big chunk of the Lammermuir hills—has been acquired by a landlord based in Hampshire—he could have been from anywhere, but he happens to be from Hampshire. He is seeking to obstruct and restrict people's access to his land in a part of the countryside where access has always been enjoyed in the past. There have been incidents where estate staff have ordered people off the hills—they have no right to do so, but people are easily intimidated under such circumstances.
The clauses will encourage that type of landlord in Scotland. It is not good enough for the Minister to say that the law is net supposed to work like that. I refer him to the advice that hon. Members have received from the Law Society of Scotland. The society has written:
In the Society's view this Clause could be interpreted to restrict many of the recreational uses to which the countryside is put.
There is no exclusion of ramblers, hillwalkers or other recreational users from the provisions of the Clause".
If the Law Society of Scotland reckons that the clause can be interpreted in that way, I am sure that its members and their clients will seek to interpret the legislation in that way and seek to impose restrictions where previously there were none. If it can be interpreted that way, it will be. The House must reject this alien and abhorrent intrusion into Scots law.

Mrs. Ewing: The issue is an extremely emotional one for Scotland. There are two key resources for any country: its land and its people. The question of how to unite the land and its people is critical in terms of the economy, the environment and enjoying leisure pursuits in our region.
One difficulty is that many people who speak on the subject try to define it as one that applies only to hill walkers, ramblers and Munro baggers. Those are key people, but there are many other organisations—about 60—that want to have access to our land. They involve geologists, archaeologists and ornithologists, and a variety of people. There is a fundamental principle at stake; it exists in Scotland and has been built up over the centuries. It is the freedom to roam the country while observing obvious and sensible codes of conduct.
Another aspect, to which I particularly refer Labour Members, is that we are talking about legislation that will apply to Scotland and we again see Scottish legislation being crammed into a small section of a UK Bill. But, when it comes to the crunch, Labour Members from Scotland are quite happy to accept that this a United Kingdom Parliament. They vote in favour of Conservative Members from English constituencies dominating the legislative process. At some stage they have to decide whether they want to protect the Scottish legal system and

the laws of Scotland or whether they want to sit here on the green Benches and try to climb up the ladder of promotion in the United Kingdom.
There are questions that I want to ask of the Ministers this evening. On what basis did Lord Fraser of Carmyllie decide that the provisions should extend to Scotland? He appeared on a television programme and made it quite clear through the Scottish Lobby that he asked for them to apply to Scotland. Where is the logic in that? If there were a strong argument for the Bill to be applied north of the border, surely Lord Fraser should have included the issue of raves. But that subject is not included in the Bill. What are the Government planning on that aspect? Who wrote to Lord Fraser of Carmyllie? Who asked him to apply the provision to Scotland? What factor led him to decide that the measures should apply to Scotland? Was there one letter or more than one letter or was it an ideological decision?
What would the Minister define as lawful activity in the context of the Bill? I have already mentioned the various organisations, many of them comprised of very lawful people who have no desire to fall out with the landowners, the farmers and all the people who respect the countryside. Why cannot lawful activity be defined in the Bill? Does a deficiency exist in the Scottish legal system? Anyone who does not observe the countryside code, as the Minister and I understand it, can be prosecuted in civil law under the Trespass Act 1865 or for a breach of the peace. Why should criminality be attached to actions that I consider lawful?
Does the Minister believe that Scotland faces the prospect of one landowner bringing a test case before the Scottish courts? If the landowner was not particularly sympathetic to ramblers, geologists and so on, such a test case could be a key factor in future Government legislative programmes and for Scottish courts. Relying on a test case sets a dangerous precedent in Scottish law, and one that could set the pace for future cases.
This part of the Bill is vague, unnecessary and subject to various interpretations—as has already been made clear by the Law Society of Scotland and other organisations. Why is the Minister introducing such legislation now, when Scottish Natural Heritage is holding back on its access recommendations? In his letter to The Scotsman on 10 March, Magnus Magnusson said that rules of access to Scottish land must first be defined and that the Bill is premature. He warned the Secretary of State against changing trespass from a civil to a criminal offence.
If the Minister is determined to pursue that course, what resources will he provide to chief constables and police forces in constituencies throughout the Scottish regions, so that they may employ extra staff? It is clear from the Bill that many police men and women will be required to police various organisations as their members walk through the hills and glens of Scotland—although that is clearly ridiculous. In the context of joint police boards under local government reorganisation, will suitable facilities be made available as part of those arrangements?
The Bill has huge implications for the traditional right and freedom to roam our Scottish countryside, for our police forces and for tourism—with visitors discouraged, fearing that they will be accused of criminal activities. Why on earth are the Government adopting this attitude when the Bill concerns England and Wales?

Mr. Sam Galbraith: I regret that, in her bitterness, the hon. Member for Moray


(Mrs. Ewing), instead of attacking the Government, once again could not refrain from attacking my party. Not only does that not do her party any good, but it does not do the cause that we are fighting any good.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: rose—

Mr. Galbraith: No, I will not give way—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It might be to the advantage of the House if hon. Members settled down. Let us hear what the hon. Gentleman has to say.

1 am

Mr. Galbraith: I shall return to the substance of the debate. I am sure that the Minister must be somewhat ashamed of himself in having to introduce the amendment tonight. He knows that it offends the tradition of Scottish law and also the Scottish tradition of access to the Scottish countryside, be it high in the mountains or low in the plains. A tradition in which there has been a symbiosis between the landowners and those wishing to use it for recreational purposes has persisted throughout the years. But now the Minister and his Government are threatening that, for reasons that are not clear to Opposition Members. Perhaps the Minister will explain who asked for this provision in the Bill. Where is the demand coming from? The landowners say that it is not them. There is no recreational organisation. I think, therefore, that the Minister is duty bound to answer that question tonight.
I have been tramping the Scottish hills and mountains for the best part of 40 years—yes I am only 40. I started early. In that time, I have noticed two significant changes. The first is the reduction in the amount of wild camping, where one can pitch one's tent by the road in glens without having to be organised into official camp sites. There has been a significant reduction in the amount of such camping over the years and it will be reduced by the Government's proposals tonight. In many cases, the reduction was necessary, because of the increased numbers, the sanitation, and so on, as seen, for example, on Glenbrittle, Skye. But, increasingly, landowners are breaking down the relationship between themselves and those who use the mountains.
The second thing that has changed over the years is what climbers call the hassle factor—the number of signs that appear when one enters the mountains. The signs have no legal bearing or standing whatever, but are intended to try to bluff and intimidate hill walkers and others into not utilising the land. A current offensive sign is that in Strathconon. It reads:
Deer in these hills are shot from mid August-February for sport, meat and Government control policy"—
whatever that is. But one can see immediately the inference that, somehow or other, it is Government policy and that one will offend some statute when there is no such statute to offend. It continues:
Walkers are therefore warned that rambling on high ground at this time can seriously upset large areas for deer stalking and can be dangerous.
I wonder about the danger. I do not see the hills laden with shot hill walkers and mountain climbers. There is an important point in that notice in relation to what is termed "intent" in the Bill that is before us.
On top of the hassle factor and the restriction—

Mr. Phil Gallie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Galbraith: I am certain that I will regret this, but, as the hon. Gentleman is a well-known hill walker and will explain to me the intricacies of Scottish law, I will give way.

Mr. Gallie: I have listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has suggested. Given the contents of the Bill, the fact that intimidation must be shown to have been involved, and that a uniformed police man must be present, is it not the case that, as was suggested by the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson), the hill walkers who have been hassled in the past by the ghillies and others can now feel quite confident in saying that they have no authority and that they should bring in someone, perhaps from the police force, before they can be forced from the land?

Mr. Galbraith: It is clear that the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) has not read the Bill and does not understand any part of it. I shall explain to him that, if one is half-way up a mountain glen staring at a ghillie with a large-bore shotgun, quoting to him what the hon. Member for Ayr said in the Chamber will not assist one's chances of getting down.
The Scottish Landowners Federation has given a number of assurances. I am not going to attack the federation—my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) is a consummate expert at that so I shall leave it to him—but the problem is that it does not speak for all landowners and especially not for the new age landowners who are moving in.
I cite the classic example of the land around Loch Maree which includes several mountains that are important to the climbing fraternity. Access to and camping on that land used to be free but along came a new landowner from outwith this country, and who is not part of our tradition, and suddenly there is a block not only on access but on camping. We are talking not about new age travellers or vast armies pitching their tents but about the occasional climber of Slioch. The assurances from the Scottish Landowners Federation are not adequate.
The crux of the issue is intent. The Scottish Landowners Federation says that intent has to be shown but the problem is whether, if a notice similar to that which I have just described from Strathconon is presented at the point of access to the hills but ignored and bypassed by hill climbers—as it should be—in the knowledge that deerstalking is taking place, can the landowner claim and have it upheld in law that an individual had intended to disrupt that activity? That is the important point. Will the law state that an individual who ignores a notice stating that there might or might not be deerstalking in a given area intended to disrupt it?
I remind the House that it need not necessarily be the intent of disrupting deerstalking; lambing must also be considered. Will crossing areas during the lambing season mean intentionally disrupting a lawful activity in which the landowner is engaged? It is a serious legal point, and I ask the Minister please not to tell us that the matter will be settled in the courts. It should not need to go that far; it should be clarified now.
If the Minister is not willing to accept our amendments which would remove these provisions from Scotland, he should at least give an assurance that he will reconsider the


issue as the Scottish Landowners Federation said. We need better definitions to satisfy both sides of the argument so that once again the symbiosis between landowners and climbers and ramblers can continue and that we in Scotland can continue to maintain the freedom to roam the mountains.

Mr. Wilson: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith), I deplore the fact that what should have been the united voice of the Opposition parties was divided by a rather bitter and unpleasant attack on the Labour party by the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing). [Interruption.] I hear the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh), who I think plays the role of Baldrick to the Blackadder of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond). I do not know where the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan is—

Mr. Welsh: rose—

Mr. Wilson: No, I shall not give way.
The idea that there is a great Westminster conspiracy hardly stands up. The right to roam survived very well in Scotland from 1707 until 1994 under a Westminster Parliament. It is threatened not by Westminster but by the current breed of Tories at the Scottish Office. It was not I who voted in 1979 to help to bring the current breed of Tories to the Scottish Office—very specifically, it was both members of the Scottish National party who are here tonight. Perhaps they should have exercised a little foresight, because when they helped to bring the Tories to power, they were helping to bring this type of legislation to Scotland.
There is nothing axiomatic in the system. The offence of aggravated trespass will apply not only to Scotland but to the whole of the United Kingdom. As a socialist and a Member of Parliament, my ambition will be to remove that offence from the statute book, not only in Scotland but in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, too. I recognise, even if those silly people do not, that Scottish climbers do not climb only in Scotland, and English climbers do not climb only in England.
We are concerned with a wider vista, and with defending the rights of our people—the ordinary people of every part of the United Kingdom. That, essentially, is what differentiates us from the nationalists, who try to divide and fragment every argument according to race and nationality, as opposed to seeing things within the framework in which they are only too pleased to participate at other times—the framework of the Parliament of the United Kingdom.
It is not Westminster but the Tories who are imposing the new law. It is not my job to advance the interests of Scottish nationalist Members, but I suggest that in their own interests they might sometimes address the real enemy instead of expressing their paranoia about the Labour party in Scotland.
Contrary to what my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) said, I stand here tonight as the spokesman for the Scottish Landowners Federation. That is an unlikely role for me, because ai other times I have been critical of the federation as an organisation and of some of its individual members. But tonight I stand here happily holding a letter written on the notepaper of the Scottish Landowners Federation. If the Minister would stop talking to his fellow Under-Secretary

of State, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), long enough to listen, he might know what case he has to answer.
The only people who seem to support the new power are those in the Tory party in Scotland. As I have said before, normally one of their roles is to act as the political wing of the Scottish Landowners Federation, so one would expect them to be prepared to accept the federation's bidding on this issue. However, the federation has been sufficiently moved by the campaign of resistance that we have led against the measure to make its position clear. I heard its views summarised on the radio this week, and I was surprised and interested enough to get hold of a copy what it had said.
The preamble in the letter says that the federation wants the power of aggravated trespass in Scotland because there is a problem with hunt saboteurs and other such people, especially in the borders, and that it is worried that, if the new offence existed in England but not in Scotland, there would be an incentive for people to cross the border, and hunt saboteurs would become more active, particularly in the Borders. I do not necessarily accept any of that, and I certainly have no prejudice against hunt saboteurs, who probably do quite a good job.
However, having set out that preamble, Duncan W. Thomson, legal adviser to the Scottish Landowners Federation, then makes the crucial point:
However, we are conscious of the concerns which have been expressed about the scope of these Clauses and, as we have no wish for there to be any possibility of this legislation restricting normal public access to the countryside or of limiting the public's legitimate right to protest, we would have no objection to any amendments which would narrow the focus of the Clauses onto the specific mischief to be targeted. Indeed we have suggested some alternative wording for this purpose.
So what is the situation that we have to deal with? The. Government are advancing a catch-all power—I shall talk about the nature of that in a moment. Yet the Scottish Landowners Federation, in whose interests the Tories usually act, says that it recognises that such a power cannot be justified.
In other contexts, the federation has also said that it does not believe that it is a catch-all power, and does not intend its members to use the measure as such. In the letter, it recognises that the public perception nonetheless is of a catch-all power, and says that, in order to avoid giving that impression, it is prepared, indeed happy, for amendments to be made to the Bill.
The only point on which I dissent from the Scottish Landowners Federation is that it says when the power would not be used as a catch-all power, whereas I say that it would be. One cannot put this power into the hands of the Scottish landowning fraternity without expecting it to be used.
1.15 am
The whole business has its provenance in the Tory party conference last October, when the Home Secretary and various other luminaries were trying to chill the delegates to the marrow by raising the spectres of threats to society as we know it. They told the delegates how those threats to society were to be dealt with on the great law and order platform. Two particular bogies were introduced at that conference—new age travellers, who have always struck me as a relatively harmless lot in Scotland, and hunt saboteurs, who were to be clamped down on to repay a debt


to the British Field Sports Society. Those are the two bogies which were set up and which then had to be legislated against.
The crucial point is that there is no mention on the face of the Bill of either new age travellers or hunt saboteurs. What is mentioned is groups of people who obstruct. That is nothing to do with what the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) said about threatening behaviour or intimidation. The Bill refers only to those who obstruct or disrupt "lawful activity". Virtually anything that landowners are likely to do in the Scottish countryside can be construed as lawful activity.
The only defence of the Scottish Landowners Federation previously was to say, "It is not we, the landowners, who prosecute; it is the police who investigate and the procurator fiscal who decides whether to prosecute." However, the point is that every complaint will have to be investigated; that is not discretionary on the part of the police.
The other crucial point, into which my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden has gone in enough detail, is the fact that the provision will create a climate in which the banditry of Scottish landownership will feel encouraged to put up signs that are intended to intimidate. They are doing so already on the island of Arran in my constituency. I am delighted to say that every one of the signs has been taken down or painted out, and that that will continue.

Mr. Gallie: The hon. Gentleman said that I was wrong to suggest that intimidation would be involved. If he reads clause 58(1)(a), he will see that the word "intimidating" is used. It is he who should read the Bill.

Mr. Wilson: With respect, it is the hon. Gentleman who should have the Bill read for him. The word "intimidating" is one of the options. The other two possibilities are obstruction and disruption, which are far more subjective than the word "intimidating".
There is a great deal to be said on the matter. The provision is a fundamental threat to a very basic right in Scotland—the freedom to roam. The Minister should have nothing to do with it. He can wear two hats tonight. He can wear the hat of someone who is an upholder of the Scottish legal system, or he can wear the hat of someone who is the upholder of a Scottish landowning family. He cannot serve both masters.

Mr. Bill Walker: It is true to say that there is concern in Scotland. Opposition Members who have spoken were right to draw attention to the concern. The concern is that people carrying out their normal, lawful activities fear that they will no longer be able to do so.
We must look carefully at the term "aggravated trespass". I declare an interest here. As the House knows, I am chairman of the all-party scout group. The scouts are very active in the countryside. I also happen to be president of the Scottish Gliding Union. Anyone who has watched the gliders flying around Scotland will realise that they frequently land in other people's gardens and premises. On one occasion, I remember landing in the middle of a go-kart racing meeting, and I hope that my landing on that day would not be looked on as aggravated trespass in future.
I also declare another interest: I regularly walk on the hills in my constituency—and elsewhere, but especially in my constituency. I know, and I have met, the people who

are concerned. I am sure that the Minister will reflect the aspects of their concerns and will explain to the House why aggravated trespass will be a part of Scottish law, because there are areas in which it is needed.
However, the objective must be clearly to allow the activities that are currently carried out by individuals, such as those which I have described—the scouts, the hill walkers, the mountaineers and the glider pilots—to continue, so that there is no doubt whatever that normal activities are not at risk.

Mr. Eric Clarke: I shall also be brief. I want to deal with two aspects which I do not think have been covered. Before doing so, I shall say to the Ministers that, again, there has been no consultation. Whom did they consult in Scotland? The issue is about Scottish people, including anglers and ornithologists, as has been mentioned, having access.
I want to talk about birdwatchers. The steamer in May over to Orkney is full of people who are going bird watching. It is a big industry, by the way. It fills a lot of hotels and puts bread on the tables of a lot of people in those areas. If there is no access to the nesting sites, or to the lochs when trying to fish, or to the moorlands or the hills, how can people carry out their activities?
Many barriers and no-go areas in Scotland already exist. Huge boulders have been put in natural parking places by landlords who do not want people to stop. They want people to continue, to move on, and they do not want anybody to have any access to the country in which they were born. They may have bought land in the country, but they have not bought the country, and they have certainly not bought the people of country. I want access for Scottish people and for any visitors-who are law-abiding.
I have been stopped and asked why I am looking over a bridge into a pool that happens to be full of salmon in the Strathalladale valley. I did not have a fishing rod, I had no gun in my hand, but the people there who were in control happened to be the ghillies who were watching us from a hill, and they told us to move on while we were on a highway. We told them what to do with themselves in no uncertain fashion. That is without the law being changed. Under the interpretation of over-zealous people, we know what will happen. Such people will move on everybody if they do not like them, or if they cannot make any money from them.
Aggravated trespass is trespassing of the wrong kind. I hope that the Government will think twice, especially the Ministers who are having a wee chat, and will take cognisance of the sincerity of our words. Like my colleagues and others, I have had many letters from many organisations and individuals who are worried about access and about the clause. I hope that, this early morning, we amend the clause, and I appeal to Conservative Members to support the amendment.

Mr. Thomas Graham: The other week, I celebrated my silver wedding anniversary. Unfortunately, I had to be in the House to vote against the Government. If I had been privileged to spend the time with my wife, I would have been in the north of Scotland. I would have been in Sutherland enjoying the absolutely magnificent scenery and the magnificent countryside that we have in Scotland.


If the Government got their way, I would not be able to move in the countryside; I would probably be charged with aggravated trespass. I shall come to that point in a moment.
The Government are one of the most bungling, bloody foolish Governments that we have ever had in the history of this country.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. The hon. Gentleman has been in the House long enough to know how to conduct himself. I shall be grateful if he will withdraw the word "bloody".

Mr. Graham: I withdraw.
The Government have run the country into billions of pounds worth of debt. Once again, they have introduced a measure which will probably cost Scotland millions of pounds in tourist earnings. That is something that they do not recognise. They make every move with tunnel vision—they do not look at the overall situation.
I live in Scotland. I also travel the length and breadth of Scotland, and I meet American tourists, Italian tourists and German tourists—I meet the lot. They come to Scotland for fishing, hunting, hill walking, climbing and ornithology. I do not think that Tory Members, especially the Minister, have any fun in life. Some of us know that the country makes a living out of fishing and various other leisure pursuits.
Scotland has the longest coastline in Europe. Access to that long coast is free to the public and fishermen. I could take the Minister to many places in Scotland where people can park their cars, wander over the hills down to the beach, take out their fishing rods and throw them into the sea without breaking the law. Hopefully, they try to catch a cod, a haddock or whatever they can in the sea, without any fear of breaking the law. Under the Government's proposals, people will be breaking the law when they go to some of those areas; it will be aggravated trespass.
Many people in Scotland may spend a weekend of pleasure perhaps by driving—they may even drive from my area of Linwood. Perhaps a busload of men and women who have worked hard all week will drive to the north of Scotland, cross to the beach, bring out their rods and fish without any problems. [Laughter.] Listen to the laughter of those who have plenty. Many people do not have plenty; they rely on the freedom and ability to take part in pursuits, but they will be punished for not having the money to go to a golf course, a swimming pool or whatever. In Scotland, sea fishing is free at present. There is no charge for or hindrance to crossing land.
My hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke) talked about ornithologists. I happen to be an amateur ornithologist. I know that Tory Members like real bird watching; my bird watching is of the feathered kind. I agree with my hon. Friend that there are many places that could be denied to a group of ornithologists who wish to see rare birds which have a beauty that perhaps other folk may not appreciate, but ornithologists do. Yet we could be construed as an unlawful assembly. It is very frightening for somebody like myself who was born in a tenement building in Glasgow but who appreciates the opportunity to get out into the countryside and who recognises the freedom of the Scottish heritage and the right to the freedom of movement which we have always agreed that our people should have.
As a kid and as a young man, I went with my father to camp on the banks of the Clyde. Maybe they were not very

salubrious. Maybe the Ministers camped near Cannes. Maybe they swanned about the Seine or whatever—I do not know. But when I was a young boy, we did not have money, and we camped on the banks of the Clyde. There was nothing more pleasurable than beachcombing. It gave us a wee bit of fun, and it did not cost our parents a fortune.
If this law is passed tonight, these pursuits, which have been free to the people of Scotland, will become costly. Even the simple pursuit of sunbathing could be construed as a crime. I look at the rows of sun-tanned faces in front of me, the Tenerifes, the Canary Islands and the Bahamas. I can tell the House that few of the people I represent have that opportunity. They have to go into the public parks or to the free open spaces of Scotland—when the weather is good.
The point that I am making is a serious one. I underline the fact that these things are free, not subject to a punitive £5 or £10 tax while the Government's leaders fly to sunny lands elsewhere.
I have spoken about sea angling, about ornithology and about sunbathing, all of them free in Scotland. I will tell the House a story and ask hon. Members to think about it.
I am an hon. Member, and last year, in the company of my wife, my 15-year-old son and a friend who is very knowledgeable about the countryside, I went for a drive in the north of Scotland. We drove into an area called Inverpolly. I hope that the House is listening to this story. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] We stopped in a beautiful part of Sutherland, known as Inverpolly nature reserve. My friend, my young son and I got out. [Laughter.] This is important. Maybe we have some laughing Members here and maybe they do not want to listen to a serious point, but they could be put in the situation that I was put in. My son was shown various sorts of fauna, things that were very rare. I am not skilled in these things, but my friend happens to be.
A Land Rover drew up, and a young man got out with a Welsh accent. [Laughter.] He shouted to myself and my family, "What are you doing here?" [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Chair is keen to know what the Welshman said.

Mr. Graham: I am most grateful for your support in this serious matter, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The gentleman proceeded to ask what we were doing there. I said that we happened to be looking at the fauna, and that my friend was explaining to my son what it is, what it means and how it arrived in Scotland. It arrived long before any Welshmen came to the area. I did not enter into any argument with the man, but I asked him who he was. [Interruption.] Government Members who may want to know about the Bill which we are debating tonight should consider this.
The man said that he was the landowner. He was not—he was the landowner's son. However, he was under the impression that we had to beg to be on the land. Is that the type of Scotland we want for the tourists who come along? I am not interested for myself, and I know that for every one of him there are a hundred others who will welcome the interest in the countryside.
However, there is that individual who can abuse the law, deny that freedom of movement, damage the reputation of this country and of tourism in this country, and can cost us a fortune in earnings which we desperately


need. I say to the Minister that this is bad legislation. The Government are trying to crack an ant and use a tank. It is nonsense.
I love Scotland. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I also love and appreciate other parts of the world. The one fundamental thing that I have is that I am free to move about and to love the Scotland I live in. I hope that my sons will cherish the love that I have for the country by knowing that they can move about in it.
That is why we Scotsmen will play our part in defending this nation in any cause—because we know that we are supporting the right of Scotland to be for all. It is not for rich, it is not for the haves, but for every one of us—including those who have not even been born. I ask the Government to consign this bad legislation to the bin.

Mr. Maclennan: I begin by expressing my appreciation to the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) for his eloquent testimony to the beauties of my constituency. Long may he visit it with his family and advertise its attractions. The hon. Gentleman expressed a true voice which needed to be expressed in this debate and which was an appropriate climax to the debate. He speaks for many in the House.
It may be something of a dying cause to recall the origins of the two clauses that have proved so controversial this evening, but the Government's failure to recognise the views that the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde expressed has unnecessarily led us a merry dance tonight.
Undoubtedly, the two clauses were introduced in response to a genuine policing problem in England and Wales, and with the full support of the police there. The problem did not exist in Scotland and we discovered with some surprise that the Government intended that the law should also be applied there. Changes to the public order laws affecting access to land in Scotland are bound to be sensitive and should not be made without widespread open consultation. The mischief—if mischief there is—must be demonstrated clearly before amendments to Scots law are put before the House.
It is not the case, as the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) said, that the Labour party lay down and accepted the legislation. In the Standing Committee, the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman)—the sole voice of the Labour party in Scotland on the Committee—from the very beginning protested most strongly about the manner in which the Government were legislating. He was right to do so. A part of the Bill is devoted to Scotland, but no Scottish Minister was present in Committee to explain what consultations had taken place and the attitude of the Scottish police and the Law Society of Scotland to the problem. We heard tonight that they do not believe that the two clauses are necessary or wise. None of those matters was debated properly or considered before tonight, which is why there has been a long, protracted and open discussion. We could not discuss them before.
Contrary to the views expressed earlier, there is a justification for the two clauses to apply in England as they will enhance the effectiveness of the police when dealing with serious confrontations, which have grown in magnitude in recent years, to the point that lives have been lost in England and Wales. That problem does not exist in

Scotland and there is no reason to believe that it will do so. The proposition that it may is hypothetical and we should not legislate to make major changes in the public order law of Scotland on the basis of such a hypothesis. I therefore support the view that the amendments that affect Scotland should not be added to the Bill.

Dr. Godman: I promise that I shall be brief, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I thank the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) for the compliments that he paid me some minutes ago. Apart from all else, the debate has been reasonable—it was a lively one when my hon. Friend and neighbour, the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham), spoke.
The debate was considerably marred by the unpleasant and nasty speech by the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing). The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland also protested over the inclusion of controversial Scottish legislation in what is primarily an English Bill. We said over and over again that the measures should have formed part of a Scottish criminal justice Bill—I am given to understand that one will be introduced next year—or a Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill. Such measures come before the House every four or five years.
As an immigrant to the Clyde and someone who is neither a Munro bagger nor an ornithologist like my hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde, I should like to make a couple of points. Incidentally, my hon. Friend is himself a bit of a land grabber. It looks as if, as a result of the findings of the Boundary Commission, the best part of my constituency will go to him. I may lose 9,000 or 10,000 votes. I would take that very badly if it meant that I did not have the second safest seat in Scotland.
1.45 am
The measures were introduced to deal with a difficult problem in the shape of the activities of so-called new age travellers, hunt saboteurs and other, so-called, subversive groups—subversive in the view of people with a Tory perspective. What is wrong with the existing legislation when it comes to dealing with people who behave in a disorderly or unruly fashion while traversing land owned by others? We have the common law charge of breach of the peace, which many police officers have told me is entirely adequate to deal with the rare cases of unruly trespassers. Do we not also have the civil law enabling a landowner or his or her factor to take out an interdict in the Court of Session? What is wrong with that law?
As a lawyer, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland knows as well as any Opposition Member that the clauses have been foisted upon him by Home Office Ministers. When, in Committee, I challenged the Minister of State about bringing the legislation into Scotland, he said—I am not quoting him verbatim—"If we were to leave the law in Scotland as it stands, and introduce these necessary measures to deal with new age travellers and others south of the border, the new age travellers would head north." I do not know how far they would go. Would they look for standing stones, dolmens and so on?
I challenge the Under-Secretary to contradict what I have just said. He and his right hon. and learned Friend at the Home Office foisted the legislation on to what I suspect were reluctant Scottish Office Ministers, as happened in


the case of the privatisation of prisons. In the context of the House of Commons and the Westminster Government, Scottish Office Ministers are very much messenger boys.
A large constituency, including not just Scotland but the whole United Kingdom, could be affected by the measures. It is not a middle-class constituency. The people who walk the hills of Scotland, those who fish in Scotland and those who come to enjoy the country's remarkable flora and fauna are from every social stratum. The odd-job lot opposite who, by any measure of parliamentary democracy have no mandate to govern in Scotland, seek to make life difficult.
I shall finish with an example. I know an old fellow in Glasgow. An ex-bricklayer, he is a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway). He is in his 85th year, so there is no way that he can now go Munro bagging. However, for 60 to 70 years he walked Scotland's hills with his late and lovely wife, Pearl. He asked me, "Why are they doing this?" That remarkable old man said, "We have the common law. People can be accused of breaching the peace if they behave badly. A landowner can bring in an interdict to prevent a group of people from behaving badly on other people's property, so why are the Government doing this?" I told him that it is because Scottish Office Ministers are the puppets of the Home Secretary, who says that, if England must have the legislation, Scotland must also have it. Scottish Office Ministers will come to regret that, because—[Interruption.] I wish that the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) would wrap up. She would not accept an intervention from me. She is always highly emotional because she is a loser.

Mr. Welsh: rose—

Dr. Godman: The Minister is making a mistake in presenting the measures. He is an honourable man, who knows in his heart that this is bad legislation. Scotland's own legal system can deal with recalcitrant trespassers, who should be dealt with effectively and efficiently by the police. They can be dealt with by recourse to extant law. The measure applies to England and should be restricted to England.

Mr. Welsh: The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), who would not give way to me, said that my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) was a loser. The biggest loser tonight will be Scotland because, despite all the fine sentiments that have been expressed, the vote in this United Kingdom Parliament will ultimately go against the wishes of the Scottish people.
The call for unity has been rather pathetic. Those who have spoken against the measure realise full well that, despite their fine words, the vote will force an unwanted measure on Scotland. That is exactly what is going on upstairs in the Committee considering the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill. The clearly expressed wishes of the Scottish people are simply overruled because the in-built English majority is not listening to Scottish opinion.
There is absolute unity about wanting to maintain the present system in Scotland, where our people have free access, as they should have, to country areas. If that goes, it will go because the United Kingdom Parliament cannot take account of the needs of Scotland or the Scottish people. I wish that the Unionists in the Labour party would

understand what they are inflicting on our people. All the fine words of protest mean nothing because of the system that they support. That will be seen in the Lobby tonight. When the Minister has finished replying, he will give no concessions. He will force this basically English measure, which is correct for England, on to Scotland.
May I appeal to all those hon. Members who represent an English seat to think seriously? The measure is correct for them but do they understand that, in voting for it tonight, they will force on to Scotland a measure that is not needed or wanted and is against the wishes of the majority? The unity in opposition to the measure will not be reflected because the United Kingdom Parliament cannot meet Scottish needs. Hon. Members will be undoing the Union case by ignoring Scottish opinion yet again. The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) broadly hinted that fact to the Minister.
Ultimately, another United Kingdom vote will force on Scotland a measure that is unnecessary, unwanted and against the wishes of the people. That is the reality of the Unionism that the Labour party supports.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: This is not an English measure, as the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) suggests. It is a British measure, which applies to Britain as a whole. No Conservative Member is prepared to see Scotland, any more than any other part of the Great Britain, become a refuge or haven for saboteurs. We have one policy for the nation as a whole.
The hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) made a most striking speech. He said that he was asked, "What are you doing here?" He is not the only Member to have been asked that. Brian Walden asked me that question on my first day in the House of Commons and I told him that I had been elected. I can tell the hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Many hon. Members have had their say and have asked many questions of the Minister. The Minister must be given the opportunity to give his answers in reasonable silence.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that these provisions are not, in any sense, directed against him, against hill roamers, or against anyone of that kind. The clause refers clearly to circumstances where the trespasser "intends to intimidate". The hon. Gentleman has never intimidated anyone with his fishing rod or anything else.
I also make the point that, unless hill walkers, ramblers, Munro baggers, cyclists, anglers, ornithologists and the like intend to intimidate—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that I shall not have to say this again. The Minister must be given a fair hearing. The Chair wishes to hear him and I hope that hon. Members do so also.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Unless these people intend to intimidate, disrupt or obstruct, there will be no question of the clause militating against them. Scotland is not immune to this kind of activity. There have been incidents—although very few—of this kind in the past. Scotland has been fortunate in not having witnessed the scale of problems encountered in parts of England, but there is every reason to take preventive action— [Interruption.]

Mrs. Ewing: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady has been in the House for a long time. She should realise that when the Minister is on his feet she should remain in her seat.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Preventive measures should be taken to make certain that the difficulties that have arisen elsewhere in Britain are not allowed to arise in Scotland. This is a British policy and I strongly commend it to the House.

Mr. James Wallace: I had not intended to speak, but it was clear that the Minister was not going to take interventions and I think that there are still important points to be made.
Although a member of the Faculty of Advocates and of the Scottish Bar, the Minister quite clearly fails to appreciate that there is a distinctive legal system in Scotland. We may be a United Kingdom, but we are a United Kingdom that contains different legal systems. The Minister has not addressed that point.
In this clause we are grafting on to the Scottish system measures that the Minister has made perfectly clear are not justified in terms of the mischief that the clause is meant to address. The Minister said that very few incidents have occurred in Scotland. He has not told the House where the pressure has come from within Scotland to bring forward such a measure. There have been some suggestions that the measure was forced upon the Scottish Office. There has been no openness whatsoever. Who has asked the Scottish Office to bring forward the measure?
The Minister also failed to answer the important questions raised by the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) about how much the measure will cost the police forces in Scotland.

Mr. Graham: Does the hon. Member also realise that the Minister did not answer the point that I raised: that the measure is a recipe for bad landlords? It will open up a can of worms. It will restrict not just indigenous Scots but tourists and the people who come to this country and spend much-needed income.

Mr. Wallace: The Minister did not answer a number of points. No Scottish Minister served on the Standing Committee that considered the Bill and the reply that we received from the Minister this evening did not do justice to the debate that preceded it.
I understand that, under clauses 58 and 59, arrests can be made only by a constable in uniform. Does that mean that all hunts and grouse shoots or every expedition of ramblers has to be policed? If that is the case, what will be the financial cost to the police forces in Scotland? Will the Scottish Office make resources available to the police forces to allow this measure—which the Government obviously think is so necessary for Scotland—to be implemented properly? An important question about resources has arisen. That question has not been answered, and I hope that we can have an answer before the House is invited to vote on the amendment.

Mr. John Maxton: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Question is that the amendment be made. As many as are of that opinion say "Aye", to the contrary, "No". Clear the Lobbies.

Mr. Maxton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

The House proceeded to a Division:—

2 am

Mr. Maxton (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was on my feet wishing to speak in the debate when you called the Division. I do not consider that to be proper parliamentary procedure at the Report stage of a Bill in which anybody is entitled to speak if he rises to his feet unless a motion to close the debate has been moved. No such motion has been moved and I was on my feet wishing to speak. I want you to stop the Division and allow me to make the points that I was going to make.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The occupant of the Chair must be able to see an hon. Member on his feet, and I did not see anyone on his feet. [Interruption.] Order. I repeat that the occupant of the Chair is supposed to see an hon. Member on his feet and I did not see anyone on his feet. I have called a Division.

Hon. Members: Shame.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Question is that the amendment be made. As many as are of that opinion say "Aye", to the contrary "No". I think the Ayes have it.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 305, in page 110, line 29, leave out '123, 124, 126, 127'.

No. 79, in page 110, line 30, leave out '132' and insert

`132(1)'.—[Mr. Maclean.]

Amendment proposed: No. 80, in page 110, line 32, after 'sections', insert '58, 59'.—[Mr. Maclean.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 246, Noes 108.

Division No. 209]
[2.03 am


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Burt, Alistair


Alexander, Richard
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Carrington, Matthew


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Carttiss, Michael


Amess, David
Cash, William


Arbuthnot, James
Chapman, Sydney


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Churchill, Mr


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Clappison, James


Ashby, David
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Aspinwall, Jack
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Atkins, Robert
Coe, Sebastian


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Colvin, Michael


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Congdon, David


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Conwy, Derek


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Coombs, Simon, (Swindon)


Baldry, Tony
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Couchman, James


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Cran, James


Bates, Michael
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Batiste, Spencer
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Bellingham, Henry
Davies, David (Boothferry)


Bendall, Vivian
Day, Stephen


Beresford, Sir Paul
Delvin, Tim


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Dickens, Geoffrey


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Booth, Hartley
Dover, Den


Boswell, Tim
Duncan, Alan


Bowden, Andrew
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Bowis, John
Dunn, Bob


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Dykes, Hugh


Brandreth, Gyles
Eggar, Tim


Brazier, Julian
Elleston, Harold


Bright, Graham
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Budgen, Nicholas
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Burns, Simon
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)






Evennett, David
Mans, Keith


Faber, David
Marland, Paul


Fabricant, Michael
Marlow, Tony


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Fishburn, Dudley
Mates, Michael


Forman, Nigel
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Merchant, Piers


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Mills, Iain


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Moate, Sir Roger


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


French, Douglas
Moss, Malcolm


Gale, Roger
Nelson, Anthony


Gallie, Phil
Neubert, Sir Michael


Gardiner, Sir George
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Nicholls, Patrick


Garnier, Edward
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Gill, Christopher
Norris, Steve


Gillan, Cheryl
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Ottaway, Richard


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Page, Richard


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Paice, James


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Patnick, Irvine


Hague, William
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Pawsey, James


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hampson, Dr Keith
Pickles, Eric


Hanley, Jeremy
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hannam, Sir John
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Harris, David
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Haselhurst, Alan
Richards, Rod


Hawkins, Nick
Riddick, Graham


Hawksley, Warren
Robathan, Andrew


Hayes, Jerry
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Heald, Oliver
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Hendry, Charles
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Hicks, Robert
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Sackville, Tom


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Shaw, David (Dover)


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Shersby, Michael


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Sims, Roger


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Soames, Nicholas


Hunter, Andrew
Spencer, Sir Derek


Jack, Michael
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Spink, Dr Robert


Jenkin, Bernard
Spring, Richard


Jessel, Toby
Sproat, Iain


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Steen, Anthony


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Stephen, Michael


Key, Robert
Stewart, Allan


King, Rt Hon Tom
Streeter, Gary


Kirkhope, Timothy
Sumberg, David


Knapman, Roger
Sweeney, Walter


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Sykes, John


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Knox, Sir David
Temple-Morris, Peter


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Thomason, Roy


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Thomton, Sir Malcolm


Legg, Barry
Thurnham, Peter


Leigh, Edward
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Tracey, Richard


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Tredinnick, David


Lidington, David
Trend, Michael


Lightbown, David
Trotter, Neville


Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Lord, Michael
Viggers, Peter


Luff, Peter
Walden, George


MacKay, Andrew
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Maclean, David
Waller, Gary


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Wardle, Charles, (Bexhill)


Madel, Sir David
Waterson, Nigel


Maitland, Lady Olga
Watts, John


Malone, Gerald
Wells, Bowen





Whitney, Ray
Wolfson, Mark


Whittingdale, John
Wood, Timothy


Widdecombe, Ann
Yeo, Tim


Wiggin, Sir Jerry
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Willetts, David



Wilshire, David
Tellers for the Ayes:


Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Mr. Andrew Mitchell and


Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)
Mr. Michael Brown.


NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Kilfoyle, Peter


Adams, Mrs Irene
Lewis, Terry


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Livingstone, Ken


Austin-Walker, John
Loyden, Eddie


Barnes, Harry
McAllion, John


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
McAvoy, Thomas


Bennett, Andrew F.
McCartney, Ian


Blair, Tony
Macdonald, Calum


Bray, Dr Jeremy
McFall, John


Burden, Richard
McKelvey, William


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
McLeish, Henry


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Maclennan, Robert


Chisholm, Malcolm
McMaster, Gordon


Clapham, Michael
Madden, Max


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Mahon, Alice


Corbyn, Jeremy
Marek, Dr John


Corston, Ms Jean
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Dalyell, Tam
Maxton, John


Darling, Alistair
Meale, Alan


Davidson, Ian
Michael, Alun


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Dewar, Donald
Milburn, Alan


Dixon, Don
Miller, Andrew


Donohoe, Brian H.
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Dowd, Jim
Morley, Elliot


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Mowlam, Marjorie


Etherington, Bill
Mullin, Chris


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Olner, William


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
O'Neil Martin


Foulkes, George
Pickthall Colin


Fyfe, Maria
Pike, Peter L.


Galbraith, Sam
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Galloway, George
Rendel, David


Gerrard, Neil
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Gordon, Mildred
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Graham, Thomas
Ruddock, Joan


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Sedgemore, Brian


Gunnell, John
Simpson, Alan


Hanson, David
Skinner, Dennis


Heppell, John
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Hinchliffe, David
Spearing, Nigel


Hoey, Kate
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Turner, Dennis


Home Robertson, John
Wallace, James


Hood, Jimmy
Watson, Mike


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Welsh, Andrew


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Wilson, Brian


Hutton, John
Wise, Audrey


Illsley, Eric
Worthington, Tony


Ingram, Adam
Wray, Jimmy


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)



Jackson, Helen (Shefld, H)
Tellers for the Noes:


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S 0)
Mr. Eric Clarke and


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Mr. Michael Connarty.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. George Robertson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. At the calling of the vote, a number of points of order were raised and strong emotions were being expressed. I realise the difficulties for the Chair in an atmosphere of high emotion, and the debate, which lasted 91 minutes, was on a subject that is very important, certainly to Scotland. It has to be said that we were not reassured by the fact that, at the end of the debate, a Minister responded in three inadequate minutes. I therefore suggest that the anger felt by my colleagues is quite


understandable. Sensible arguments were made and serious and detailed questions were asked, but the Minister completely—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. As an experienced Front Bencher, the hon. Gentleman knows full well that it is for the Minister to decide on his own speech.

Amendments made: No. 306, in page 110, line 32, leave out '125' and insert `to 127'.

No. 81, in page 110, line 32, after '125', insert '132(2), (3) and (6)'.

No. 103, in page 110, line 32, after '125' insert 133, 134'.

No. 104, in page 110, line 33, at end insert

`and sections 133 and 134 also extend to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man'.

No. 82, in page 110, line 42, after '130', insert 132(5)'.

No. 184, in page 110, line 42, after '130', insert 131(2)'.

No. 83, in page 111, line 1, leave out 'Section 44 extends' and insert
'Sections 44, 74(8) to (11), 75(4) to (6), 76(2) and 132(5A) extend'.—[Mr. Maclean.]

Orders of the Day — Schedule 1

ESCORT ARRANGEMENTS: ENGLAND AND WALES

Amendment made: No. 297, in page 113, line 15, leave out 'hat' and insert 'headgear'.—[Mr. Maclean.]

Orders of the Day — Schedule 4

TRANSFER FOR TRIAL

Amendments made: No. 191, in page 118, line 48, after 'shall' insert
subject to subsection (10A) below,'.

No. 192, in page 118, line 51, at end insert—
'(10A) Where the evidence discloses an offence other than that charged the court need not dismiss the charge but may amend it or substitute a different offence; and if the court does so the amended or substituted charge shall be treated as the charge the proceedings on which are to be transferred for trial.'.

No. 193, in page 119, line 7, after 'charges' insert 'on the same evidence'.

No. 194, in page 119, line 19, at end insert
'or has succeeded in relation to one or more but not all the charges,'.

No. 195, in page 119, line 22, after 'charges' insert 'or remaining charges'.

No. 196, in page 119, line 39, after 'case' insert
`and of any documents referred to in it as having already been supplied to the magistrates' court on which it was served'.

No. 197, in page 119, line 40, after `made)' insert 'a copy'.

No. 198, in page 122, line 33, at end insert—
' "the 1976 Act" means the Bail Act 1976;'.

No. 350, in page 122, line 33, at end insert—
' "the 1968 Act" means the Firearms Act 1968;'.

No. 199, in page 123, line 28, at end insert—

`Bail Act 1976 (c. 63.)

. In section 3 of the 1976 Act (incidents of bail in criminal proceedings)—

(a) in subsection (8) (variation and imposition of bail conditions by court), for the words from "committed" to "trial or" there shall be substituted the words "released a

person on bail on transferring proceedings against him to the Crown Court for trial or has committed him on bail to the Crown Court"; and
(b) in subsection (8A), for the words "committed on bail" there shall be substituted the words "released on bail on the transfer of proceedings against him."

No. 351, in page 123, line 28, at end insert—

'Firearms Act 1968 (c. 27.)
. In paragraph 3(3) of Part H of Schedule 6 to the 1968 Act (trial of certain offences under that Act)—

(a) after the word "If' there shall be inserted the words ", under section 6 of the said Act of 1980,";
(b) for the words from "determines" to "for trial" there shall be substituted the words "dismisses the charge against the accused";
(c) in sub-subparagraph (a), for the words from "inquire" to "justices" there shall be substituted the words "proceed with a view to transferring for trial proceedings for the listed offence";
(d) in sub-subparagraph (b)—

(i) for the words "inquire into" there shall be substituted the words "proceed in respect of'; and
(ii) for the words from "its inquiry" to "justices" there shall be substituted the words "a view to transferring for trial proceedings for that offence."'.

No. 201, in page 126, line 6, at end insert—
`. In section 129 of the 1980 Act (further remand), in subsection (4)—

(a) for the words from "commits" to "bail" there shall be substituted the words "releases a person on bail on transferring proceedings against him to the Crown Court for trial"; and
(b) for the words "so committed" there shall be substituted the words "in respect of whom proceedings have been transferred."'.

No. 200, in page 128, line 43, at end insert—
'.—(1) Schedule 3 to the 1988 Act (enforcement of contribution orders) shall be amended as follows.

(2) In paragraph 1(b)—

(a) for the words from "who" to "by a magistrates' court)" there shall be substituted the words "against whom proceedings were transferred for trial or who was committed for sentence"; and
(b) for the words "committed him" there shall be substituted the words "transferred the proceedings against him or committed him for sentence."

(3) In paragraph 9(b), for sub-subparagraph (i) there shall be substituted the following sub-subparagraph—

"(i) in the proceedings against the legally assisted person being transferred to the Crown Court for trial or in the legally assisted person being committed to the Crown Court for sentence, or."

(4) In paragraph 10(2)(b), for sub-subparagraph (i) there shall be substituted the following sub-subparagraph—

"(i) in the proceedings against the legally assisted person being transferred to the Crown Court for trial or in the legally assisted person being committed to the Crown Court for sentence, or."'.—[Mr. Maclean.]

Orders of the Day — Schedule 9

MINOR AMENDMENTS

Amendments made: No. 186, in page 137, line 3, at end insert—

'Poaching: increase in penalties

.—(1) The Game Act 1831 shall be amended as follows.

(2) In section 30 (trespassing in search or pursuit of game)—

(a) for the words "level 1" there shall be substituted the words "level 3"; and
(b) for the words "level 3" there shall be substituted the words "level 4."

(3) In section 32 (searching for or pursuing game with a gun and using violence, etc.), for the words "level 4" there shall be substituted the words "level 5."

(4) The Game (Scotland) Act 1832 shall be amended as follows.

(5) In section 1 (trespassing in search or pursuit of game)—



(a) for the words "level 1" there shall be substituted the words "level 3"; and
(b) for the words "level 3" there shall be substituted the words "level 4."

(6) In section 6 (penalty for assaults on persons acting under the Act), for the words "level 1" there shall be substituted the words "level 3."

(7) The amendments made by this paragraph shall not apply to offences committed before this paragraph comes into force.'.

No. 187, in page 137, line 7, at end insert—

'Poaching: forfeiture of vehicles

. After section 4 of the Game Laws (Amendment) Act 1960 there shall be inserted the following section—

"Forfeiture of vehicles.

4A.—(1) Where a person is convicted of an offence under section thirty of the Game Act 1831 as one of five or more persons liable under that section and the court is satisfied that any vehicle belonging to him or in his possession or under his control at the relevant time has been used for the purpose of committing or facilitating the commission of the offence, the court may make an order for forfeiture under this subsection in respect of that vehicle.

(2) The court may make an order under subsection (1) above whether or not it also deals with the offender in respect of the offence in any other way and without regard to any restriction on forfeiture in any enactment.

(3) Facilitating the commission of the offence shall be taken for the purposes of subsection (1) above to include the taking of any steps after it has been committed for the purpose of—

(a) avoiding apprehension or detection; or
(b) removing from the land any person or property connected with the offence.

(4) An order under subsection (1) above shall operate to deprive the offender of his rights, if any, in the vehicle to which it relates, and the vehicle shall (if not already in their possession) be taken into the possession of the pace.

(5) Where any vehicle has been forfeited under subsection (1) above, a magistrates' court may, on application by a claimant of the vehicle, other than the offender from whom it was forfeited under subsection (1) above, make an order for delivery of the vehicle to the applicant if it appears to the court that he is the owner of the vehicle.

(6) No application shall be made under subsection (5) above by any claimant of the vehicle after the expiration of six months from the date on which an order in respect of the vehicle was made under subsection (1) above.

(7) No such application shall succeed unless the claimant satisfies the court either that he had not consented to the offender having possession of the vehicle or that he did not know, and had no reason to suspect, that the vehicle was likely to be used for a purpose mentioned in subsection (1) above.

(8) An order under subsection (5) above shall not affect the right of any person to take, within the period of six months from the date of an order under subsection (5) above, proceedings for the recovery of the vehicle from the person in possession of it in pursuance of the order, but on the expiration of that period the right shall cease.

(9) The Secretary of State may make regulations for the disposal of vehicles, and for the application of the proceeds of sale of vehicles, forfeited under subsection (1) above where no application by a claimant of the property under subsection (5) above has been made within the period specified in subsection (6) above or no such application has succeeded.

(10) The regulations may also provide for the investment of money and the audit of accounts.

(11) The power to make regulations under subsection (9) above shall be exercisable by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

(12) In this section, "relevant time", in relation to a person convicted of an offence such as is mentioned in subsection (1) above, means the time when the vehicle was used for the purpose of committing or facilitating the commission of the offence, or the time of the issue of a summons in respect of the offence.."'.

No. 349, in page 138, line 12, at end insert—

'Firearms: increase in penalties

.—(1) In Part I of Schedule 6 to the Firearms Act 1968 (punishment of offences under the Act)—

(a) in the entry for section 5(1) (possessing or distributing prohibited weapons or ammunition), in the entry in the fourth column specifying the punishment on conviction on indictment, for the words "5 years" there shall be substituted the words "10 years"; and
(b) in the entry for section 5(1A) (possessing or distributing other prohibited weapons)—

(i) in the entry in the fourth column specifying the punishment on summary conviction, for the words "3 months" there shall be substituted the words "6 months"; and
(ii) in the entry in the fourth column specifying the punishment on conviction on indictment, for the words "2 years" there shall be substituted the words "10 years."

(2) In Schedule 2 to the Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 1981, in the entry relating to Article 6(1) (which makes persons convicted on indictment of certain offences relating to prohibited weapons liable, among other penalties, to imprisonment for a period not exceeding 5 years), in column 4 for the words "5 years" there shall be substituted the words "10 years."'.

No. 203, in page 139, leave out lines 8 to 12.

No. 202, in page 141, line 26, at end insert—

'Fraud cases: preparatory hearings
. In section 7 of the Criminal Justice Act 1987 (preparatory hearings for certain fraud cases), in subsection (1), for the words "seriousness and complexity" there shall be substituted the words "seriousness or complexity."'.—[Mr. Maclean.]

Mr. Michael: I beg to move amendment No. 76, in page 143, line 39, to leave out from 'below' to end of line 42.
I shall not speak at length in view of the hour, but it would be remiss of us not to deal with the important issue of pre-sentence reports. The Minister who attended the Committee will know of the considerable anger that was expressed about the fact that amendments were tabled at a very late stage—amendments that had not been the subject of consultation with those who deal with pre-sentence reports and the business of probation.
There had been no consultation with the Central Council of Probation Committees, either, or with the Association of Chief Officers of Probation. The National Association of Probation Officers opposed the amendments and there was also concern and opposition on the part of the Justices' Clerks Society.
That led us to table amendments Nos. 76 and 77, which would exempt offenders under the age of 18 from the provisions on pre-sentence reports. The Bill provides that the courts will no longer have to obtain a pre-sentence report before passing a custodial or community sentence on an offender if they consider that obtaining such a report is "unnecessary".
The principal reason for requiring courts to consider pre-sentence reports before passing a custodial sentence was summarised in the 1990 White Paper, "Crime, Justice and Protecting the Public", as follows:
The purpose of requiring the courts to consider a report by the probation service when a custodial sentence is contemplated will be to provide the court with detailed information about how the offender could be punished in the community, so that option can be fully considered.
It seems that on the basis of a few conversations during his travels around the country the Minister came to the conclusion that that could be cast to one side.
The adverse effects of custody on young people, and the high reconviction rates for young people released from custody, make it especially important that it is used only when other options have been carefully considered and, for


good reasons, rejected by the court. That should not be a matter for disagreement across the House. The Home Office's own figures show that 82 per cent. of juveniles leaving prison service custody are reconvicted within two years.
Without up-to-date information of the kind available in a pre-sentence report, courts could impose sentences on young offenders harsher than might be justified in the circumstances, or indeed—to mention one of the possibilities that seem to concern Conservative Members more—sentences that are too short to protect the public from an offender who poses a risk of serious harm. Courts may also miss the opportunity to sentence an offender to a community sentence of a kind that can effectively tackle problems and change the attitudes underlying his or her offending.
It is important that the court should have the right information before it, and a full understanding of the reasons why an offender has committed offences, so as to take the right decision and give the right punishment to deal with that particular offender and that particular offence.
The importance of such information in selecting the best way of dealing with young offenders was underlined by the findings of the recent Policy Studies Institute survey, "Persistent Young Offenders", published this year. That showed that persistent young offenders frequently lead chaotic, disrupted and traumatised lives, often involving severe family problems, experience of abuse, exclusion from school, homelessness and—increasingly often in modern society—drugs. That is why the Opposition have tried to require the Government to introduce a proper national strategy for dealing with drugs, and especially to target young offenders within such a strategy.
Young offenders' circumstances are liable to rapid change. That in itself is a reason why it is inadequate to depend on a report that, although recent, may not be up to date. Careful attention to up-to-date information when making decisions about the treatment of offenders is essential if they are to be helped to avoid a downward spiral made worse by the effects of the criminal justice system operating in the wrong way, and not working as it was intended to work.
The type of information that can be made available, and that is extremely relevant to decisions, concerns the circumstances of the individual. For instance, family circumstances can change rapidly and there can be a crisis in the family. There should be information about the attitude of the offender to the victim, including whether there is remorse or a lack of it. There should be information about whether the offender has successfully completed previous non-custodial sentences. In my experience in both youth and adult courts, the report showing what has happened and what decisions have been made about an offender is frequently not up to date when the court comes to take a decision. Often it is the report prepared by the probation service that provides to the court information that is crucial in that it is up to date and understands precisely the circumstances of the offending. Information on the success or otherwise in completing non-custodial sentences, or breaches of or failure to respond to such sentences, should be before the court before decisions are taken.
Information about the offender's attitudes and characteristics which are relevant to the risk of future offending and the likely seriousness of any future offences should be available. The House should ensure that information on the seriousness of possible offences and the impact on victims is available to the court, especially in relation to those under 18.
There is a danger that the continual fluctuations—there have been changes in the past three Criminal Justice Bills—in the amount of information that is available to the court in dealing with offenders undermine the system. That should not be allowed to happen, especially in relation to those aged under 18. I hope that the Minister will tell the House what consultations he has undertaken; he was invited in Committee to undertake consultations with the probation service, with the Central Council of Probation and After-Care Committees, with those who have the responsibility of trying to make the system work, with the magistrates and with the Justices' Clerks Society. He should have undertaken those consultations because, as we said in Committee, we found out in the 48 hours before the Government's amendment being debated that all those organisations were very concerned about the amendment and had not been properly consulted.
The importance of dealing properly, accurately and in a targeted way with those aged under 18 is, to a great extent, the key to the way in which we prevent young offenders from turning into persistent adult offenders. That should be a major target of the House and of the criminal justice system as a whole.
I should have liked to have spoken for longer because these issues are extremely important. I have some experience, both as a magistrate and as member of a probation committee. It is wrong for the amendments, which were tabled at so late a stage, to brush aside careful consideration of these pieces of information, which are important not only to target the behaviour of the offender, but to ensure that the courts are able to do their job of protecting the public in the future and of reducing the likelihood of reoffending.
For those reasons, I commend the amendments to the House. I hope that the Minister will accept them as a modest step backwards from the extreme situation to which he took us in Committee. I hope that he will explain to us whether he has accepted the invitation for proper consultation, which had not been accepted before he moved amendments in Committee and which was needed before the House contemplated such a severe change in the method of dealing with reports in court.

Mr. Maclean: I have listened carefully to the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael). Of course, I greatly respect his experience as a magistrate. The more I listened to him, the more convinced I became that there was not much between us on the issue, although there was a small point of principle. I am afraid that I must tell the hon. Gentleman that that is enough to lead me to say that I cannot accept the amendments.
The amendments would have the unhelpful effect, in the case of offenders aged under 18, of removing the limited discretion that the Government intend to give the courts to dispense with a pre-sentence report. The requirement in the case of juvenile offenders that the courts must have regard to a previous report on the offender concerned in all cases involving an offence triable summarily—or an either-way case—before they may exercise their discretion to dispense


with the requirement to obtain a pre-sentence report has been imposed by the Government precisely because we recognise that special considerations apply in the case of juveniles and because the courts must have proper regard to their welfare requirements. The effect of the constraints that we have imposed on the courts' discretion in the case of juveniles will be to ensure that in every case the courts will have regard to a report on the offender. That will provide the necessary safeguards for juvenile offenders who have been sentenced to custody or to a major community sentence for an offence triable summarily on either-way cases.
2.30 am
The restrictions imposed by the amendments will, I believe, limit the sentencing power of judges and magistrates unnecessarily and in an unacceptable way. In the case of juvenile offenders, the court will invariably have a report before it and, if it contains the infonnation that the court needs, I say to the hon. Member that there is no reason why a new pre-sentence report should be required.
Of course, I assure the hon. Gentleman that the new arrangements will be kept under review to ensure that they work satisfactorily. I am convinced that they will. Of course, we shall want to keep them under review and, in the process of going round the country and consulting others, I shall ensure that we take any views into account. In view of those assurances and the fact that there is not a great deal between us, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree to withdraw his amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Amendments made: No. 352, in page 144, line 44, at end insert—

'Fines

.—(1) Sections 18 and 20 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (which relate respectively to the fixing of fines and financial circumstances orders) shall be amended as provided in sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) below.

(2) In section 18—

(a) for subsection (1), there shall be substituted the following subsection—
"(1) Before fixing the amount of any fine to be imposed on an offender who is an individual, a court shall inquire into his financial circumstances."; and
(b) in subsection (3), after the word "fine" there shall be inserted the words "to be imposed on an offender (whether an individual or other person)".

(3) In section 20, in subsections (1), (1A), (1B), (1C), (2) and (3) for the words "a person" and "any person" there shall be substituted the words "an individual" and "any individual".

(4) In section 57(4) of that Act (application to local authorities of power to order fines to be paid by a parent or guardian), paragraph (b) shall be omitted.

(5) The amendments made by this paragraph apply in relation to offenders convicted (but not sentenced) before the date on which this paragraph comes into force as they apply in relation to offenders convicted after that date.'.

No. 354, in page 144, line 44, at end insert—

'False statements as to financial circumstances
. After section 20 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 there shall be inserted the following section—

"False statements as to financial circumstances.

20A.—(1) A person who is charged with an offence who, in furnishing a statement of his financial circumstances in response to an official request—

(a) makes a statement which he knows to be false in a material particular;
(b) recklessly furnishes a statement which is false in a material particular; or
(c) knowingly fails to disclose any material fact,

shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale or both.

(2) For the purposes of this section an official request is a request which— 

(a) is made by the clerk of the magistrates' court or the appropriate officer of the Crown Court, as the case may be; and
(b) is expressed to be made for informing the court, in the event of his being convicted, of his financial circumstances for the purpose of determining the amount of any fine the court may impose.

(3) Proceedings in respect of an offence under this section may, notwithstanding anything in section 127(1) of the 1980 Act (limitation of time), be commenced at any time within two years from the date of the commission of the offence or within six months from its first discovery by the prosecutor, whichever period expires the earlier.".'

No. 43, in page 145, line 16, at end insert—

'Sexual offences

.—(1) In section 31(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (which defines, amongst other expressions, "sexual offence"), for that definition, there shall be substituted the following definition—

"sexual offence" means any of the following—

(a) an offence under the Sexual Offences Act 1956, other than—

(i) an offence under section 12 or 13 of that Act which would not be an offence but for section 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 1967, or
(ii) an offence under section 30, 31 or 33 to 36 of that Act;

(b) an offence under section 128 of the Mental Health Act 1959;
(c) an offence under the Indecency with Children Act 1960;
(d) an offence under section 9 of the Theft Act 1968 of burglary with intent to commit rape;
(e) an offence under section 54 of the Criminal Law Act 1977;
(f) an offence under the Protection of Children Act 1978;
(g) an offence under section 1 of the Criminal Law Act 1977 of conspiracy to commit any of the offences in paragraphs (a) to (t) above;
(h) an offence under section 1 of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 of attempting to commit any of those offences;
(i) an offence of inciting another to commit any of those offences;".

(2) The amendment made by this paragraph shall apply in relation to offenders convicted (but not sentenced) before the date on which this paragraph comes into force as it applies in relation to offenders convicted after that date.'.

No. 44, in page 146, line 14, at end insert—

'Anonymity of victims of certain offences

.—(1) In section 2(1) of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 (offences to which that Act applies), after paragraph (e) there shall be inserted the following paragraphs—

"(f) any conspiracy to commit any of those offences;

(g) any incitement of another to commit any of those offences.".

(2) The amendment made by this paragraph shall apply in relation to offenders convicted (but not sentenced) before the date on which this paragraph comes into force as it applies in relation to offenders convicted after that date.'.

No. 175, in page 146, line 18, leave out from first 'the' to end of line 19 and insert
`substitution, for the words from "or the powers" to the end, of the words "and, where it confers a power on the court, shall not apply in proceedings instituted before the coming into force of that provision.".'—[Mr. Maclean.]

Orders of the Day — Schedule 10

CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Amendments made: No. 355, in page 146, leave out lines 25 to 27 and insert 'proviso (b) shall be omitted.' No. 357, in page 146, line 27, at end insert—

'Evidence of accused in criminal proceedings

. In section 1 of the Criminal Evidence Act (Northern Ireland) 1923 (competency of accused to give evidence in criminal proceedings)—
(a) after the words "Provided as follows:-" there shall be inserted the following proviso—
(a) A person so charged shall not be called as a witness in pursuance of this Act except upon his own application;";
(a) proviso (b) shall be omitted.'

No. 302, in page 147, line 38, at end insert—

'Payment of damages by police authority
. In section 48(4) of the Police Act 1964 (payment by police authority of damages awarded against constables), after the words "section 14 of this Act" there shall be inserted the words "or section 127 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994".'

No. 303, in page 148, line 10, at end insert—

'Payment of damages by Scottish police authority

. In section 39(4) of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967 (payment by police authority of damages awarded against constables), after the words "section 11 of this Act" there shall be inserted the words "or section 127 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994".'

No. 88, in page 150, line 16, at end insert—
'. —(1) The Protection of Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 shall be amended as follows.

(2) In Article 4(1)—

(a) after the word "photograph" there shall be inserted the words "or pseudo-photograph"; and
(b) after the word "photographs" there shall be inserted the words "or pseudo-photographs".

(3) In Article 5(3) and (5), after the word "photographs" there shall be inserted the words "or pseudo-photographs".

(4) In Article 6(1), after the word "photographs" there shall be inserted the words "or pseudo-photographs".

(5) In Article 7(1), after the word "Order" there shall be inserted the words "relating to indecent photographs of children".'.

No. 177, in page 150, line 20, at end insert—

'Procedure for young offenders in cases of grave crimes
. In section 24(1)(a) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (exception to summary trial of children or young persons) the words "he has attained the age of 14 and" shall be omitted.'

No. 360, in page 152, line 46, at end insert—

'(1A) In Article 4—

(a) in paragraph (1)—

(i) for the words "to (7)" there shall be substituted the words "and (4)";
(ii) in sub-paragraph (b), the words "be called upon to" shall be omitted;
(iii) for the words from "if' onwards there shall be substituted the words ", at the conclusion of the evidence for the prosecution, his legal representative informs the court that the accused will give evidence or, where he is unrepresented, the court ascertains from him that he will give evidence";

(b) for paragraphs (2) and (3) there shall be substituted the following paragraph—
(2) Where this paragraph applies, the court shall, at the conclusion of the evidence for the prosecution, satisfy itself (in the case of proceedings on indictment conducted with a jury, in the presence of the jury) that the accused is aware that the stage has been reached at which evidence can be given for the defence and that he can, if he wishes, give evidence and that, if he chooses not to give evidence, or having been sworn, without good cause refuses to answer any question, it will be permissible for the court or jury to draw such inferences as appear proper from his failure to give evidence or his refusal, without good cause, to answer any question.";

(c) in paragraph (4)—

(i) at the beginning there shall be inserted the words "Where this paragraph applies,";
(ii) in sub-paragraph (a), for the words "from the refusal as appear proper" there shall be substituted the words "as appear proper from the failure of the accused to give evidence or his refusal, without good cause, to answer any question";

(d) in paragraph (5), for the words "refusal to be sworn" there shall be substituted the words "failure to do so";
(e) paragraphs (9) and (10) shall be omitted.'

No. 185, in page 156, line 14, at end insert—

'Contracted out prisons: exclusion of search powers

In section 87(3) of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (provisions of Prison Act 1952 not applying to contracted out prisons), after the word "officers)" there shall be inserted the words "and section 8A (powers of search by authorised employees)".'.

No. 57, in page 156, line 33, at end insert—

'Secure training orders: cost of supervision by probation officer

In section 17 of the Probation Service Act 1993 (probation committee expenditure)—

(a) in subsection (1), for the words "and(5)" there shall be substituted the words "(5) and (5A)"; and
(b) after subsection (5) there shall be inserted the following subsection—

"(5A) Nothing in sections 18 or 19 requires there to be paid out of the metropolitan police fund or defrayed by a local authority any expenses of a probation committee which are defrayed by the Secretary of State under section 3(5A) of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.".'—[Mr. Maclean.]

Orders of the Day — Schedule 11

REPEALS

Amendments made: No. 356, in page 156, line 39, column 3, leave out 'provisos (a) and (b)' and insert 'proviso (b)'.

No. 358, in page 156, line 40, at end insert—


'1923 c.9 (N.I.).
Criminal Evidence Act (Northern Ireland) 1923.
In section 1, proviso (b).'

No. 204, in page 157, line 14, at end insert—


'1965 c. 69.
Criminal Procedure (Attendance of Witnesses) Act 1965.
Section 1.'.

No. 178, in page 157, line 41, column 3, at end insert—

'In section 24(1)(a), the words "he has attained the age of 14 and".'

No. 205, in page 157, line 44, column 3, at end insert—

No. 205, in page 157, line 44, column 3, at end insert—

'Section 102.



Section 103



Section 105



Section 106



Section 145(1)(e)



In section 150(1), the definition of "committal proceedings"



In Schedule 5, paragraph 2.'

No. 206, in page 158, line 27, at end insert—

'1988 c. 34. Legal Aid Act 1988.
In section 20(4)(a), the words "trial or".



Section 20(4)(bb).



Section 20(5).'.

No. 359, in page 158, line 27, at end insert—

'1988/1987 (N.1.20).
Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1988.
In Article 4, in paragraph (1)(b) the words 'to be called upon to" and paragraphs (9) and (10).'

No. 207, in page 158, line 34, at end insert—

'1991 c. 13. War Crimes Act 1991.
In Section 1(4), the Words "England, Wales or', part I of the Schedule.'.

No. 353, in page 158, line 43, column 3, at end insert—



Section 57(4)(b), together with the word "and" preceding it.'

No. 347, in page 158, line 45, at end insert—

`Note: The repeals that are to come into force on the passing of this Act are the following, namely, the repeals in the Caravan Sites Act 1968 and the Public Order Act 1986.'—[Mr. Maclean.]

Orders of the Day — Title

Amendment made: No. 133, line 30, after 'prisons;', insert

to amend the law relating to homosexual acts'.—[Mr. Maclean.]

Manuscript amendment made: In line 30, after 'prisons' insert

`to penalise certain uses of germ cells or embryos'.—[Mr. Maclean.]

Motion made and Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. Howard.]

The House divided: Ayes 220, Noes 44.

Division No. 210]
[2.34 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Cash, William


Alexander, Richard
Chapman, Sydney


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Churchill, Mr


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Clappison, James


Amess, David
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Arbuthnot, James
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Coe, Sebastian


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Colvin, Michael


Aspinwall, Jack
Congdon, David


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Couchman, James


Baldry, Tony
Cran, James


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Bates, Michael
Davies, David (Boothferry)


Batiste, Spencer
Day, Stephen


Bellingham, Henry
Delvin, Tim


Bendell, Vivian
Dickens, Geoffrey


Beresford, Sir Paul
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Dover, Den


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Duncan Alan


Booth, Hartley
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Boswell, Tim
Dunn, Bob


Bowden, Andrew
Dykes, Hugh


Bowls, John
Elleston, Harold


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Brandreth, Gyles
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Brazier, Julian
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Bright, Graham
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Brown, M. (Brigg &Cl'thorpes)
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Evennett, David


Budgen, Nicholas
Faber, David


Burns, Simon
Fabricant, Michael


Burt, Alistair
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Carrington, Matthew
Fishburn, Dudley


Carttiss, Michael
Forman, Nigel





Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Nicholls, Patrick


French, Douglas
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Gale, Roger
Norris, Steve


Gallie, Phil
Ottaway, Richard


Gardiner, Sir George
Page Richard


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Paice, James


Garnier, Edward
Patnick, Irvine


Gill, Christopher
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Gillan, Cheryl
Pawsey, James


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Pickles, Eric


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Porter, David Waveney)


Hague, William
Richards, Rod


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Riddick, Graham


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Robathan, Andrew


Hampson, Dr Keith
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Hanley, Jeremy
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Hannam, Sir John
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Harris, David
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Haselhurst, Alan
Sackville, Tom


Hawkins, Nick
Shaw, David (Dover)


Hawksley, Warren
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Hayes, Jerry
Shersby, Michael


Heald, Oliver
Sims, Roger


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Soames, Nicholas


Hendry, Charles
Spencer, Sir Derek


Hicks, Robert
Michael (S Worcs)


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.
Spink, Dr Robert


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Spring, Richard


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Sproat, Iain


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Hunter, Andrew
Steen, Anthony


Jack, Michael
Stephen, Michael


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Stewart, Allan


Jenkin, Bernard
Streeter, Gary


Jessel, Toby
Sumberg, David


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Sweeney, Walter


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Sykes, John


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Key, Robert
Temple-Morris, Peter


Knapman, Roger
Thomason, Roy


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Knox, Sir David
Thurnham, Peter


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Tracey, Richard


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Tredinnick, David


Legg, Barry
Trend, Michael


Leigh, Edward
Trotter, Neville


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Twinn, Dr Ian


Lidington, David
Viggers, Peter


Lightbown, David
Walden, George


Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Lord, Michael
Waller, Gary


Luff, Peter
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


MacKay, Andrew
Waterson, Nigel


Maclean, David
Wells, Bowen


Maitland, Lady Olga
Whittingdale, John


Malone, Gerald
Widdecombe, Ann


Mans, Keith
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Willetts, David


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Mates, Michael
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Wolfson, Mark


Merchant, Piers
Wood, Timothy


Mills, Iain
Yeo, Tim


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Moate, Sir Roger



Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Tellers for the Ayes:


Moss, Malcolm
Mr. Timothy Kirkhope and


Nelson, Anthony
Mr. Derek Conway.


Neubert, Sir Michael



NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Benn, Rt Hon Tony


Austin-Walker, John
Burden, Richard


Barnes, Harry
Chisholm, Malcolm






Clapham, Michael
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Lewis, Terry


Clelland, David
Livingstone, Ken


Connarty, Michael
Loyden, Eddie


Corbyn, Jeremy
McAllion, John


Corston, Ms Jean
Macdonald, Calum


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Madden, Max


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Mahon, Alice


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Gordon, Mildred
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Graham, Thomas
Pickthall, Colin


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Sedgmore, Brian


Gunnell, John
Simpson, Alan


Heppell, John
Skinner, Dennis


Home Robertson, John
Watts, John


Hood, Jimmy
Wise, Audrey


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Wray, Jimmy


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)



Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Tellers for the Noes:


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Mr. Neil Gerrard and


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Mr. Andrew Bennett.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — Russia and Neighbouring States

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lightbown]

Mr. Michael Fabricant: Even at this late hour, and after two very late evenings, I welcome the opportunity to raise the subject of the Government's policy towards Russia.
Before I became a Member of Parliament, I was deputy chairman of a manufacturing and broadcasting group, and had the opportunity to work and live in many parts of the world. It was my privilege to count the Government of the former Soviet Union as one of my clients, which enabled me make many visits to that vast and enigmatic country.
I had the exciting opportunity to see the birth of a new nation at close hand, and on one occasion even became involved in a massive demonstration in Red square in the dying days of the Gorbachev era. I was also able to play a small part in the training of Radio Moscow news personnel in western news gathering techniques and editorial policy.
But no one—neither I nor my Russia friends, many of whom I have had the opportunity of entertaining here at the Palace of Westminster since my election—could have imagined the changes which have taken place during the past few years. The immediate aftermath of the failed August coup gave the impression that the new rulers of Soviet Russia were intoxicated with the liberalising ideal.
While Yeltsin banned the communist party, the statue of the hated Felix Dzerzhinsky, founder of the first communist secret police, was being pulled down in the Lubyanka square. Shortly afterwards, a thorough reform of the KGB was announced by its newly appointed head Vadim Bakatin.
A new dawn had at last arrived—or so it seemed. A couple of years after the coup, we witnessed the rise of Vladimir Wolfavitch Zhirinovsky. Hardliners have again been elected to the Russian Parliament, the Russian reform programmes have stalled, and KGB spies have been unearthed in America. Clear examples of Russian meddling have been exposed in the near abroad.
As Professor Martin Malia argued in an essay in 1989, Russia is caught between two worlds: an old world which refuses to die and a new one which is too weak to be born. Is it any wonder that the famous organ Pravda stated on the dissolution of the old Soviet Union:
Some joyfully exclaim: Finita la comedia! Others are heaping their hands on their heads and ask what will be"?
I welcome the opportunity in this debate to try to answer that question. In doing so, I intend first to comment on the unstable and dangerous political situation in Russia; secondly to examine Russian intervention in the near abroad; and finally, to offer proposals as to what the Government and the west can do to help ensure that the post-Soviet union moves progressively forward.
First, the current position. In 1990, Solzhenitsyn declared:
Time has finally run out for communism, but its concrete edifice has not yet crumbled. May we not be crushed beneath the rubble instead of gaining liberty.
Sadly, there are clear signs that the rubble is increasing. The election that took place on 12 December 1993, instead of ushering through a new era of democratic politicians, brought about the emergence of sovereign communism or


communo-patriotism, as Zhirinovsky's misnamed Liberal Democratic party and other pro-communists gained 40 per cent. of the seats in the state duma.
The pro-reform forces won just 35 per cent. of seats in the lower chamber of Parliament. While the forces of darkness gained the upper hand in the Parliament, the forces of reaction took hold of the reins of power in government. Reformers like Prime Minister Yigal Gaidar and Finance Minister Boris Fydorov were usurped by grey men in wide lapels from the military-industrial complex. Those included men from the Brezhnev and Gorbachev era, such as Gerashenko as head of the central bank and Alexander Zaveryukha in charge of agriculture. The prospects for economic reform look bleak when the head of the central bank is beholden to the military-industrial lobby. The former western economic adviser to Yeltsin, Jeffrey Sachs, described Gerashenko as
the worst central bank Governor in history.
Is it any wonder that genuine economic reform in Russia has faltered? Is it a surprise that the talk in Moscow is not of democracy and liberalisation, but of coups, President Yeltsin's ill health and Russia's impending slide towards dictatorship?
What are we going to do to stop that slide? What can we do? Before coming to any conclusions, we must also consider the continued flourishing of the Russian intelligence services and the strength of its military forces. As we cut back on our defence budget, we would do well to remember the maxim:
The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.
Russia has continued to developed weapons of germ warfare at special laboratories—known as the Biopreparat project—in defiance of international agreements. In late 1992, a Russian defector told the Central Intelligence Agency that, despite Yeltsin's claims, Russian researches into and development of new strains of genetically engineered super-weapons were continuing apace.
As James Adams wrote in The Sunday Times on 27 March 1994, a secret new facility is being built in St Petersburg. Far from the Biopreparat biological warfare programme being shut down, it has undergone considerable modernisation. When we give financial aid to Russia, should we not first consider how much money is being spent on such programmes?
Can my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister confirm the report in The Spectator of 23 January 1993 that the Foreign Secretary and the former United States Secretary of State, Mr. Lawrence Eagleburger, wrote a letter on 24 August 1992 to Andrei Kozyrev, stating:
We are very concerned that some aspects of the offensive biological warfare programme, which President Yeltsin acknowledged as having existed and which he banned in April, are in fact being continued"?
Since that letter, far from any scaling down of that research, Russian scientists have been put on trial as recently as February this year for revealing a "state secret" in the Moscow News about a lethal new chemical weapon called Novichok.
What are we to make of the revival of the activities of the Russian intelligence services? Last November, Michael Smith—an electronics engineer—was jailed for 25 years on three charges of spying for Russia, including giving Russian intelligence notes about the star wars project. When speaking for the prosecution, our Solicitor-General said:

The political situation in Russia was, and still is, unstable and Russia cannot be ruled out as a potential future enemy.
In the United States too the CIA has been rocked to the seams by one of the worst spying breaches in history.
Soviet and anti-democratic revivalists are sadly still on the march, and while some progress is being made towards reform, for many people in the former Soviet Union, the end of the cold war has not yet thawed much of the political system. Cold thaw politics must not be allowed to evolve into a cold peace.
What about Russian activities in the near abroad? The Government should note with increasing concern the actions of Russia in the former Soviet republics. Do we want a genuine commonwealth of independent states, or are we content to sit by and see a new Soviet Union mark 2 emerging—a new Russian empire in which the republics are mere satellites of the Kremlin once again?
Recent months have witnessed a resurgent Russia, intent on ensuring that the republics remain in Russia's sphere of influence. Russian troops seem intent on staying in Estonia and Latvia. In other republics, such as Georgia, Moscow has established virtual protectorates, signing so-called treaties of "friendship, good neighbourliness and co-operation." The treaties allow the Russian army to establish three military bases in Georgia.
In other republics, such as Azerbaijan and Belarus, by engineering local coups, Moscow has made certain that democratically elected presidents are replaced by leaders sympathetic to Moscow. That is why former Politburo member and ally of Brezhnev, Geidar Aliev, now rules Azerbaijan, and why the reformer Stanislav Shushkevich was replaced by a former senior Soviet policeman, Mecheslav Grib.
In the Ukraine, Russia seems intent on stirring up civil war by encouraging and supporting pro-Russia candidates.
Will the west stand by as Russia attempts to regain its old colonial empire? As the famous historian Richard Pipes has remarked,
One can understand Russia's resistance to international forces operating on what had hitherto been her domain … But by what right does Moscow assert the privilege of intervening in neighbouring countries whose sovereignty it recognises?
Pipes makes an important point here. Why should the Russian army be allowed to intervene in sovereign states like Moldavia?
So I come to my third and final point: what can be done? What should be Government policy towards Russia? Churchill said that Russia
is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma".
Yet there are some things that the Government, together with other countries in the west, can do to persuade Russia to embark on a genuine programme of reform and liberalisation.
Schemes like the know-how fund are excellent and should be expanded. It is a shame that Members of the European Parliament have frozen half the European Union's TACIS budget. I very much welcome the excellent activities of the all-party group the Future of Europe Trust. These should be supported every step of the way.
We need to link aid more to the behaviour of Russia in the near abroad. We have to be careful that Russian aid does not allow the Russian Government to evade hard economic policies such as the cutting of subsidies. Money should be more specifically targeted and ring-fenced for the purpose for which it is intended—for education, for training and for clearing up the environment, and so on. As


George Soros recommends, aid should be given in the form of hard currency, and should go directly to the people, by-passing Parliament.
The successful reforms carried out by the governor of Nizhy Novgorod should be examined closely by the west as a model of successful reform. The governor of the region, Boris Nemtsov, has achieved miracles in his economic reforms, and should be encouraged in every way possible. We should encourage the development of modern politics even more than we do already. We should actively encourage democratic political groups to present clear and cogent proposals for reform and end their internal divisions.
A vigorous coalition of pro-democracy forces would present a real threat—as it did during the 1991 August coup—to the forces of reaction. Such a coalition, with a sensible programme of reform, would gain respect and support from western nations. In turn, this would bolster and encourage the granting of aid to help smooth the difficulties created by price liberalisation and unemployment. If President Yeltsin is to fulfil the ideas so cogently argued in his memoirs "Against the Grain" he must be persuaded once again to ally himself with the democrats and to move away from the cold embraces of those opposed to reform.
The balance of constructive support with internal interference is a difficult tightrope to tread. We must all be aware of that fact. Mother Russia and her people have a long and heroic history, and we must be ever aware that no citizen of any country, let alone of a super-power, welcomes interference from a foreign power.
Yet, while wishing the Russian Federation and its people godspeed in their long trek to democracy and prosperity, we must be ever alert to prevent that nation's slide into another hell, which could drag the whole world into its inferno. As Milton said in "Paradise Lost",
Long is the way and hard that out of hell leads up into light".

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg): This issue is indeed an important one. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) on the knowledge and learning that he has displayed, and on his understanding of the problems that beset modern Russia. He has illuminated the debate. As the hour is wholly inappropriate for discussion of a matter of such gravity, I propose to be very brief.
My hon. Friend focused on three issues—the current position, the near abroad and main pillars of policy. I shall make just a few remarks under each heading.
First, on the current position, my hon. Friend is pessimistic, and there is cause for pessimism. I am less pessimistic than him. I believe that policies of reform are

still alive. However, if there is not substantial economic progress within the next two years, prospects are pretty bleak.
My hon. Friend went on to discuss the near abroad. Russia has legitimate concerns within the former Soviet Union, but we must never accept that Russia has the right to assert political or military hegemony over the countries of the former Soviet Union. It is essential that we recognise that the countries of the former Soviet Union are independent sovereign states.
That recognition should underpin our policy towards Russian policy in what they refer to as the "near abroad". In so far as Russian forces may be committed within the Commonwealth of Independent States, it is important that those forces are committed either with the genuine consent of the countries where they operate or under proper international mandate and authority—by which I mean either the mandate of the United Nations or the mandate of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe, should that body be in a position to grant a mandate.
On the third question—the main pillars of policy that we should adopt—my hon. Friend made a number of sensible suggestions. I agree entirely with the need for technical aid, and I am glad that my hon. Friend was complimentary about the know-how fund.
I believe that encouraging trade—Russia's ability to trade with the west—is of critical importance. Unless Russia has access to western markets, it will be extraordinarily difficult for it to attract inward investment. Unless it can attract inward investment, the prospects of developing its own indigenous industry so that it matches western standards in terms of quality and design are, again, pretty bleak.
I agree, too, with what my hon. Friend said about financial support. We should be careful about giving financial support because Russia is the proverbial black hole, and if we are underpinning the Russian economy, we must be sure that, for its part, it is fulfilling the programmes established by the International Monetary Fund and the World bank. There is a high degree of conditionality between the two.
Finally, on security, the concept of partnership for peace—establishing a working partnership or relationship between NATO and the countries of the former Warsaw pact, or former Soviet Union, depending on one's classification for those purposes—is of critical importance. It is central to that issue that NATO and Russia develop a full partnership for peace agreement that covers the whole range of co-operation, joint exercises and strategic discussions, which are essential if Russia is not to feel isolated and somehow excluded from the European security institutions.
I know that I have been brief, and have not done justice to my hon. Friend's speech, but the hour is extremely late, and I have tried to reply to the main points that he made with great eloquence.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at three minutes past Three o'clock.